Detection & verification
Quick answer
Paste your draft and the checker scores originality risk before you submit, flagging unattributed common phrasing, over-close paraphrase, missing citations around factual claims and quotation formatting. It is a self-review tool, not a database match — it cannot tell you a passage exists elsewhere, only that it reads as unsafe.
This does not search the web. It scores the signals a marker or an editor notices first, so you can fix them before anyone else reads the draft.
Published · Last updated
Originality risk
78 / 100
High risk — large stretches read as borrowed or unattributed.
Phrases that stand out
Fix these first
A real plagiarism check compares your text against an index of published work. This tool does not do that, and no browser tool honestly can. What it does instead is score the structural tells that correlate with copied writing: heavy quotation without citations, six-word runs that repeat, stock phrasing, and a narrow vocabulary that suggests a source was reworded rather than rewritten.
Quotation is not plagiarism — unattributed quotation is. If the quoted share is high but every quote carries a source, you have a style problem rather than an integrity problem: paraphrase more and quote only the lines whose exact wording matters.
Everything runs locally in your browser, so unpublished coursework, client drafts and manuscripts are never uploaded anywhere.
| What it answers | Originality risk score before you submit. |
|---|---|
| How the answer is produced | Generated text can closely echo source material in two ways: near-verbatim reproduction of distinctive phrasing, and structural copying where the argument, order and examples mirror an existing piece. |
| What you need to enter | Paste the draft and note the sources it was based on. |
| Where it stops being reliable | It does not search the web or compare against a corpus, so it cannot confirm a match exists. |
| Cost and sign-up | Free, runs in your browser, no account and no stored inputs. |
Generated text can closely echo source material in two ways: near-verbatim reproduction of distinctive phrasing, and structural copying where the argument, order and examples mirror an existing piece. The second is far more common and far less often checked.
The checker looks for the markers of both: unattributed distinctive phrases, quotations without a source, statistics presented without origin, and section structures that follow a single obvious reference. It flags where attribution is missing rather than declaring the text plagiarised.
The output is a risk band plus concrete remedies — attribute, quote properly, restructure, or replace with original analysis — because the fix is usually attribution rather than deletion.
Verbatim copying is the failure mode most people check for and the one AI tools are least likely to produce, because generated text is rephrased rather than reproduced word-for-word. Structural copying is the more common and more overlooked risk: a piece that follows the exact section order, argument sequence and choice of examples as a single dominant source in the training data or the material fed to the model, even though no individual sentence matches. A reader familiar with the original source will recognise the piece as derivative even though a similarity checker comparing exact text finds nothing.
This matters because originality, in any meaningful editorial or academic sense, is about contribution of thought as much as wording. A piece that restates one source's argument in different words hasn't added anything, and treating it as original because it passes a word-matching tool misunderstands what originality checks are actually meant to protect against. The remedy is rarely deletion; it's restructuring around your own argument and bringing in a second and third source so no single piece of material dictates the shape of the output.
Attribution failure is the other recurring pattern, and it's distinct from copying — a statistic or quotation can be entirely accurate and still constitute a problem if presented without its origin, because the reader has no way to judge its reliability or currency. Treating 'add a citation' as equivalent in importance to 'rewrite this sentence' undersells how much of the perceived originality risk in AI-assisted writing is actually a sourcing gap rather than a copying gap.
Self-plagiarism is a case the checklist treats differently from copying someone else's work, and it's increasingly common in AI-assisted writing because a model given the same brief twice, or fed a writer's own earlier article as an example, will happily reproduce large portions of that earlier piece with light rewording. This isn't a copyright problem in the usual sense, but it is a problem for publications with duplicate-content policies or for freelancers contractually obligated to deliver original work per assignment, and it's easy to miss because the writer recognises the material as 'theirs' and doesn't flag it as a risk the way they would a stranger's paragraph.
A piece comparing five project management tools follows the exact five-tool order, feature list and even the same closing recommendation as a single well-known review site, despite no sentence matching word for word. Reordering the tools by the article's own criteria (price first, since that's the stated audience priority) and adding a sixth tool the source didn't cover breaks the structural mirroring.
A draft states 'cloud migration reduces infrastructure costs by up to 30%' with no attribution. Even if accurate, this reads as either invented or lifted. Tracing it to a named vendor report and adding 'according to [source]'s 2023 analysis' resolves the risk without changing the claim itself.
A writer feeds a model their own previously published article as a style reference for a new client in the same industry, and the draft that comes back mirrors the earlier piece's section order and several of its examples closely enough that a client running a similarity check against public web content would flag it. Because both pieces share an author, the writer doesn't think to check for overlap. Comparing the new draft against the earlier published piece directly, not just against unrelated third-party sources, catches the duplication before it becomes a contractual dispute over originality.
Not inherently, but it can reproduce source phrasing, and many institutions treat undisclosed AI use as a separate integrity issue regardless of originality.
Short, clearly attributed quotes for a legitimate purpose are normally acceptable, but limits differ by jurisdiction and context. When in doubt, paraphrase and cite.
Only with attribution. Paraphrasing someone else's idea without crediting them is still plagiarism in every academic framework.
Written and reviewed by Jim Vernon, Editor, AI Intelligence International. Published by AI Answer Engine, a service of AI Intelligence International, and checked against our editorial standards.
Lovable Labs Platform