Introduction
For many PhD candidates in India, especially those balancing research with professional responsibilities, one of the most challenging parts of thesis preparation is removing plagiarism without losing the personal style and tone that makes their work unique. The similarity report from plagiarism detection software can sometimes feel like a threat to individuality, pushing scholars towards over-editing or using paraphrasing tools that strip away their natural flow. Yet a thesis is more than a compliance exercise; it is a reflection of the researcher’s academic identity.
Across both public and private universities, doctoral admission in India now comes with strict guidelines on plagiarism thresholds, often aligned with institutional interpretations of UGC norms. While these rules are essential for academic integrity, they can create pressure to overcorrect. The goal is not simply to reduce a percentage but to do so in a way that keeps the writer’s voice intact.
Understanding the Difference Between Style and Source
One reason scholars lose their voice during plagiarism removal is a misunderstanding of what needs to change. Plagiarism checks flag similarities in wording and structure, but they do not require abandoning the tone, rhythm, or approach that makes a scholar’s writing distinct. If a researcher tends to write in concise, analytical sentences, that style can remain while the wording of borrowed ideas changes.
For example, a candidate in social sciences might find that a section of their literature review closely matches a published source. Instead of rewriting it in an artificial or inflated style to “sound different,” the scholar can maintain their own clarity and structure while changing how the concept is expressed. This approach ensures compliance without replacing personal voice with an awkwardly altered one.
Rewriting as a Process of Integration
True plagiarism removal happens when the scholar integrates the source material into their own framework of understanding. This means reading the original carefully, reflecting on its relevance, and then restating it in a way that fits naturally within the thesis narrative. Rather than chasing synonyms or flipping sentence order, the writer focuses on meaning first, expression second.
This method works well for Indian PhD candidates, particularly in private universities where candidates often come from diverse professional backgrounds. A mid-career engineering professional, for instance, might reframe a technical definition from a textbook by connecting it to a practical example from industry experience. The resulting sentence would be different in wording and context while still aligned with the thesis’s voice.
Avoiding the Trap of Over-Sanitising
In the effort to remove plagiarism, some candidates over-sanitise their work — replacing straightforward language with unnecessarily complex phrasing or restructuring sentences so heavily that they lose clarity. This is often the result of relying on automated paraphrasing tools, which can introduce awkward vocabulary and disrupt the natural rhythm of writing.
Over-sanitising can make a thesis harder to read and can also draw the attention of examiners, who may question whether the candidate has understood the material. In the Indian doctoral context, where the viva voce is an integral part of assessment, scholars must be able to explain their written work confidently in their own words. Keeping one’s authentic voice intact during plagiarism removal supports this readiness.
Using Feedback to Protect Your Style
Supervisors are not only there to check compliance with plagiarism policies; they can also help maintain the individuality of a thesis. By sharing draft sections before making heavy changes, candidates can get guidance on how to reframe ideas without losing their unique tone. Early feedback is especially valuable for scholars new to academic writing, as it helps them see that similarity reduction and voice preservation are not mutually exclusive.
In some private universities, supervisors encourage candidates to rewrite flagged sections immediately after receiving a similarity report, while the material is still fresh in mind. This allows for natural phrasing rather than mechanical rewording, as the scholar remembers the logic and flow of their own writing process.
Balancing Compliance and Authenticity
The best plagiarism removal strategies keep both compliance and authenticity in mind. Citing sources correctly, summarising instead of copying, and using personal insights to frame borrowed ideas all help reduce similarity scores while maintaining voice. For part-time PhD candidates who bring workplace experience into their research, weaving in original examples or case studies can be particularly effective in keeping the tone recognisably their own.
Maintaining voice also involves resisting the temptation to imitate the style of heavily cited sources. While it may be easy to absorb the phrasing of influential authors, doing so risks both plagiarism and the loss of individuality. By consciously returning to one’s own phrasing habits and preferred sentence structures, scholars can ensure that even rewritten content sounds consistent with the rest of their thesis.
Conclusion
Removing plagiarism does not mean removing personality from academic writing. By focusing on comprehension, integration, and accurate citation, PhD candidates in India can meet plagiarism requirements without sacrificing their unique voice. The thesis then stands not just as a document that passes a similarity check, but as a reflection of the scholar’s own thinking, style, and academic maturity.