A similarity report shows extensive highlighted text and the university says your work may be plagiarised. You thought you had referenced everything. Before writing a response, look beyond the headline percentage. The question is what matches, how it was used and whether the submission complied with the assessment’s requirements.
This Education Law guide is for students and parents dealing with an allegation at a university in England or Wales. It explains a practical way to examine the report and organise an answer. It does not suggest that a low score proves innocence or that adding a bibliography automatically resolves copying coplagiarism allegationncerns.
Understand what the percentage measures
Turnitin explains that its similarity report identifies matching text; it does not itself decide whether plagiarism has occurred. Properly attributed quotations can match other material, while problematic borrowing can exist within a submission with a relatively low overall score. Its student guidance also describes situations involving matches to earlier submissions. [1]
Start by obtaining the complete report available to the university, rather than relying on a screenshot of the percentage. Ask which matches are being treated as misconduct and whether the university has excluded quotations, references or other material from the version it assessed. Record the report date and the submission to which it relates.
Read the university’s definition
A university may distinguish poor academic practice from plagiarism and may deal differently with quotation, paraphrasing, reused work and unacknowledged collaboration. Obtain the relevant definitions, assessment brief and referencing guidance. The important wording is the wording applicable to your assessment, not a general internet definition.
Pay particular attention to whether intention is part of the alleged offence. The OIA’s academic disciplinary guidance explains that providers differ in their approach to intent. A student who did not mean to cheat may still need to address a breach and then explain the significance of their circumstances when a penalty is considered. [2]
Make a passage-by-passage record
Create a working table with five columns: the challenged passage, the matched source, the citation in your submission, your explanation and supporting material. This forces the response to address the actual concern. It also reveals whether several apparently different matches come from the same underlying source.
Read the source yourself where it is available. A report may identify a website that reproduces material from a book or a student paper containing a commonly used quotation. Explain any relevant relationship between sources carefully. Do not assume that an unusual source name proves the report is wrong without examining the matching words.
Check quotation and paraphrasing separately
If you used exact wording, look at how that wording was marked and attributed. A source in the bibliography does not necessarily tell a reader which sentences are quotations. If quotation marks were omitted, explain what occurred accurately instead of insisting that any reference anywhere in the essay cures the issue.
Paraphrasing requires a different review. Compare the structure and wording of your passage with the original. Ask whether the work merely changes a few words while following the source closely, and whether the source was acknowledged. A response should distinguish a disputed allegation from a genuine referencing mistake that needs to be addressed.
Investigate matches to your own work
A match to your earlier assignment can raise a separate question about reuse. Obtain the instructions governing resubmissions, connected assessments and use of previous work. Permission to develop an earlier proposal into a dissertation is not necessarily permission to reuse an assessed essay unchanged in another module.
Where the match appears to be to a draft submitted through an authorised checking system, preserve the submission receipts and instructions. Give the university the dates and identifiers needed to investigate. Do not delete or withdraw records simply to change the visible percentage; preserving the history is more useful to a reliable explanation.
Keep authorship evidence in proportion
Drafts, reading notes and annotated sources can help explain how the submission developed. Save the originals and make copies for the response. Identify the specific point each item supports. A folder containing every file from the semester can make the important evidence harder to find.
If notes contain copied extracts, explain how those extracts were marked and later used. Mixing source wording with personal notes can help explain a mistake, but it does not automatically answer the allegation. The response should show the actual process and acknowledge what the surviving records do and do not establish.
Do not confuse a similarity report with an AI report
A university may raise both plagiarism and unauthorised AI use, but they should be answered as distinct concerns. A matching passage raises questions about its source and attribution. An AI allegation raises questions about tools, authorship and assessment permission. Ask the university to identify each allegation rather than responding to a vague combined label.
If the same document is relied on for both concerns, explain which parts of your evidence address each issue. For example, notes from a published article may explain a matched passage but say little about whether a separate paragraph was generated by a tool. Avoid assuming that success on one point disposes of the whole case.
An illustrative review of a report
Take a fictional dissertation containing a standard declaration, a long bibliography, properly marked quotations and two passages with incomplete attribution. A useful response would separate those categories. It would ask the university to explain why the first categories are problematic while dealing candidly with the two disputed passages.
Simply asking for a lower percentage would miss the point. The aim is a reasoned conclusion about the particular conduct and, where relevant, the appropriate consequence. This is a preparation example, not a claim about a case handled by Aldwych Legal or a guarantee of how a panel will decide.
Present the response clearly
Begin with the allegation and your position, following the same discipline as any well-built Dispute Resolution response. Group the challenged passages logically, attach the working table and refer to evidence by file name or page number. Explain any uncertainty and request material needed to resolve it. Avoid accusations against the marker unless there is specific evidence relevant to the decision.
If some mistakes are accepted, identify their extent. Separate your explanation of the finding from any submissions about penalty. Relevant circumstances may include the guidance received, the stage of study, the particular misunderstanding and steps taken to improve referencing. Check how the institution’s rules treat those matters rather than assuming a first incident cannot have serious consequences.
Review the outcome and protect deadlines
When a decision arrives, compare its reasons with the points you actually raised. Has it addressed the disputed sources? Has it explained which conduct was established and why the chosen penalty follows the reasoned-decision standard expected under Public Law? An appeal should identify a permitted ground and show why the issue could have affected the result.
A parent can help check the bundle and dates, but should not rewrite the student’s explanation into a voice they cannot defend at a meeting. Keep the decision, the applicable appeal rules and evidence of when the decision was received. Seek clarification promptly if the deadline or next step is unclear.
Support from Aldwych Legal
Adam Hussain’s education practice includes Plagiarism allegations, academic misconduct and University appeals. Aldwych Legal can help review the passages, references and assessment instructions, organise the response and identify evidence relevant to the finding or penalty. This work depends on the individual documents; a percentage alone cannot support a responsible assessment of the case.
Students and parents can send the allegation, full similarity report, submitted assignment and response deadline to info@aldwychlegal.com, or call or WhatsApp 020 4584 2472. The firm supports university matters across England and Wales and assesses the appropriate scope of assistance before work begins.
About Adam Hussain
Adam Hussain is Aldwych Legal’s Founder & Managing Director and principal lawyer. His education practice includes plagiarism allegations and academic appeals. The practical work centres on comparing the disputed material with the university’s evidence and applicable assessment instructions. He holds an LL.M. in International Business Law from King’s College London, has completed Bar training and Practical Legal Training, and is a PhD doctoral researcher in Legal Science at Royal Holloway, University of London.
