Introduction
For many Indian PhD candidates in humanities and social sciences, the writing process is as much about interpretation as it is about presenting factual content. Fields like sociology, history, political science, and literature require nuanced engagement with existing scholarship, which often means dealing with large sections of text from prior research. This makes plagiarism removal more complex than in technical disciplines, where data and formulae tend to dominate. Candidates in private universities and state institutions alike often discover that even carefully written chapters in these fields can return high similarity scores when run through plagiarism detection tools.
The issue is not always about intentional copying. In humanities research, core theories, standard definitions, and historical events are frequently described using established language that cannot be altered too much without losing precision. Yet, UGC’s plagiarism thresholds still apply, and doctoral admission in India increasingly involves pre-submission checks to ensure compliance. Understanding how to address this challenge without losing the richness of your argument is essential.
Why Humanities and Social Sciences Pose Unique Challenges
In subjects like literature or anthropology, the researcher’s argument is often built by weaving together multiple perspectives. When discussing postcolonial theory, for example, you might need to cite foundational authors like Edward Said or Gayatri Spivak. The problem arises when the same phrasing from these thinkers appears in multiple secondary sources, making it harder to present the idea in a way that is both accurate and original.
Similarly, in Indian history papers, the names, dates, and descriptions of events are fixed, but the interpretation can be personalised. Without sufficient rephrasing or synthesis, large blocks of description can inadvertently match published sources. Private universities, which often encourage interdisciplinary approaches, see this issue more frequently, as scholars draw on literature from multiple domains that already use overlapping terminology.
Strategies for Reducing Similarity Without Weakening Content
One effective method for plagiarism removal in humanities and social sciences is layered paraphrasing. This involves first rewording a passage in simpler terms, then reconstructing it using your own academic voice. For instance, instead of directly restating a critic’s interpretation of a poem, you could summarise the idea in everyday language, reflect on its relevance to your research, and then rebuild the sentence into an academically suitable form. This two-step process reduces dependence on the original sentence structure.
Another approach is conceptual synthesis—combining insights from two or more sources into a single, original statement. For example, while studying gender roles in rural India, you might merge statistical data from a government survey with a theoretical framework from a sociological text, producing a unique perspective that no single source contains. This naturally lowers similarity while enriching the argument.
Direct quotes should be used strategically, especially for highly specific or authoritative statements that cannot be paraphrased without loss of meaning. However, overusing block citations can inflate similarity scores, even if they are properly referenced. Instead, quote selectively and integrate analysis before and after the quote to make your own interpretation the dominant element.
Balancing Originality and Academic Precision
In humanities writing, originality does not mean inventing facts—it means framing them in a way that reflects your analytical lens. For example, a political science thesis on decentralisation in India may reference the same constitutional provisions as hundreds of other works. The originality lies in how you connect those provisions to case studies, interviews, or policy outcomes.
For UGC-approved plagiarism limits, it is especially important to maintain a balance between retaining key academic terms and ensuring the surrounding sentences are your own. Simply swapping words for synonyms—a common quick fix—often fails in humanities research because meaning is tied to context. Instead, reframe the entire sentence around the core term, making your argument the anchor.
Private universities with flexible research timelines can support this process by allowing students to spend more time in the reading and note-taking phase before drafting. Early engagement with diverse sources—academic books, journal articles, conference papers—reduces the reliance on a single source’s phrasing. This is particularly useful in social sciences, where theoretical diversity strengthens a thesis’s depth as well as its originality.
Conclusion
Plagiarism removal in humanities and social sciences is less about technical tricks and more about developing an authentic scholarly voice. For Indian PhD candidates, especially those balancing research with professional or family commitments, the key lies in thoughtful paraphrasing, selective quoting, and meaningful synthesis of multiple perspectives. These practices not only lower similarity scores but also enhance the clarity and authority of the final work, ensuring that the thesis stands as a genuine contribution to academic discourse.