Why the obvious “rewrite everything” fix didn’t work
You submitted a doctoral proposal, saw the red flag on the exclusion‑criteria paragraph, and immediately started re‑phrasing every sentence. The next similarity report still showed a match, and now you’re panicking that your supervisor will think you copied someone else’s PRISMA flowchart wording. The problem isn’t the wording itself; it’s the assumption that “any similarity equals plagiarism.”
In your case the software highlighted the exact phrase “Studies were excluded if they did not report a primary outcome of interest” – a sentence that appears in dozens of systematic‑review protocols because the PRISMA Extension for Protocols (PRISMA‑P) literally recommends that language. When you tried to “make it sound original,” you lost the precise terminology that reviewers expect, and you also introduced subtle inconsistencies that made the similarity score look even higher.
The key shift in thinking is to treat the PRISMA language not as a creative text to be hidden, but as a standardized reporting element that you must both use and document. Once you accept that the phrase belongs to a shared methodological vocabulary, you can focus on three things: (1) confirming that the phrase is required by the PRISMA guideline, (2) citing the guideline properly, and (3) explaining the choice in a brief note to your supervisor. This reframes the red flag from “possible theft” to “expected overlap that needs a citation.”
What the PRISMA protocol actually requires (terminology)
Most doctoral programs that ask for a PRISMA flowchart also provide a rubric that lists specific terms you must include. The rubric usually circles words like identification, screening, eligibility, and included. Under “exclusion criteria,” the rubric expects you to state the criteria in the exact language of the PRISMA‑P checklist, for example:
- “Records identified through database searching were screened for relevance.”
- “Full‑text articles were excluded if they were not peer‑reviewed.”
- “Studies were excluded if they did not report a primary outcome of interest.”
These sentences are not optional paraphrases; they are the terminology that the guideline itself defines. If you deviate, the reviewer may mark the protocol as incomplete, regardless of similarity scores. The rubric also asks for a citation right after the flowchart description, typically formatted as (Page 5, PRISMA‑P 2020). That single citation tells the reader you are following a community‑accepted standard.
Because the rubric is explicit, you can turn the “suspicious” flag into a positive by matching the exact wording and providing the required citation. The moment you do that, the similarity percentage becomes a harmless technical artifact rather than an accusation of plagiarism.
How Turnitin reads standard PRISMA language (integrity fear)
Turnitin’s algorithm looks for strings of five or more consecutive words that appear elsewhere in its database. The PRISMA exclusion‑criteria sentences are exactly the kind of strings that appear in hundreds of published protocols, so the software flags them automatically. That does not mean you have copied without attribution; it simply means the text is common.
Two practical points keep the flag from turning into a disciplinary issue:
- If similarity exceeds 20%, supervisors often request clarification. That threshold is a rule of thumb, not a hard law, but it’s the point where many committees start asking for a justification.
- Turnitin does not evaluate whether the overlap is properly cited. If the overlapping phrase is followed by a correct citation, you can point to that line in the report and show the supervisor that the match is intentional and documented.
To lower the raw similarity number without sacrificing required terminology, you can add a brief parenthetical note after each standard sentence, such as “(see PRISMA‑P 2020, Section 3.4).” The extra words break up the five‑word string, and the citation makes the overlap transparent.
Another safe move is to include a short “Author’s note” after the flowchart that explains why the language is standard. Turnitin will still see the overlap, but the note provides context that human reviewers can see instantly, reducing the chance of a misunderstanding.
Applying the “standard‑language model” to different doctoral contexts
Not every doctoral proposal looks the same, but the principle of “use the community phrase, cite it, and annotate it” works across disciplines. Below are three common scenarios and how the model adapts.
Health‑sciences systematic review
You are a second‑year PhD candidate in epidemiology. Your exclusion criteria include “non‑randomized designs” and “studies without a control group.” The PRISMA‑P checklist explicitly uses the phrase “Studies were excluded if they did not report a primary outcome of interest.” Insert that exact sentence, then add a citation to the PRISMA‑P paper. Follow the sentence with a brief note: “These criteria follow the PRISMA‑P recommendations for transparent reporting.”
Education‑policy meta‑analysis
A third‑year doctoral student in education is mapping interventions across school districts. The rubric asks for “Eligibility criteria for inclusion.” The standard PRISMA wording—“Full‑text articles were screened for eligibility based on predefined criteria”—fits perfectly. Cite the PRISMA‑P source and add a footnote explaining that the phrase is required for reproducibility.
Engineering literature review
An engineering PhD candidate is conducting a systematic mapping study of renewable‑energy technologies. The exclusion clause reads “Conference papers without a DOI were excluded.” Again, the PRISMA‑P language “Records were excluded if they did not meet the inclusion criteria” is the exact phrase you should use, then cite the guideline. Because engineering reviewers sometimes expect a more technical justification, you can follow the standard sentence with a short clause: “(technical reports lacking a DOI were omitted to ensure traceability).”
In each case the table below helps you decide what to write, where to cite, and how to annotate.
| What to do | Why | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Insert exact PRISMA‑P sentence | Meets rubric terminology requirement | Reviewer sees compliance |
| Add citation (PRISMA‑P 2020) | Shows intentional use of standard language | Turnitin similarity becomes justified |
| Include brief author note | Provides context for similarity flag | Supervisor’s doubt is removed |
Three steps you can take tonight to clear the flag
Now that the model is clear, you can act immediately. The goal is to produce a version of the protocol that satisfies the rubric, explains the overlap, and reduces the similarity score enough to avoid a supervisor’s “why?” email.
Step 1: Verify the exact wording
Open the PRISMA‑P 2020 checklist (often available on your university library portal). Locate the section on “Eligibility criteria” and copy the sentence verbatim. Paste it into your protocol’s exclusion‑criteria paragraph, replacing any paraphrased version you wrote earlier.
Step 2: Cite the source inline
Right after the copied sentence, insert a parenthetical citation: (PRISMA‑P 2020, Section 3.4). If your citation style is APA 7, format it as (Page 5, PRISMA‑P, 2020). This single citation signals to both Turnitin and your supervisor that the overlap is intentional.
Step 3: Add a one‑sentence author note
Below the flowchart, write a brief note such as: “The exclusion‑criteria language follows the PRISMA‑P guideline; the citation clarifies its source.” Save the file, run it through Turnitin again, and note the new similarity percentage. In most cases the number will stay high, but the report will now show the citation line, making the flag easy to explain.
Finally, send a short email to your supervisor attaching the revised section and the Turnitin report excerpt that highlights the citation. Keep the message to two sentences: “I updated the exclusion‑criteria wording to match PRISMA‑P verbatim and added the required citation. The similarity highlight now reflects standard terminology rather than unreferenced text.” That proactive move demonstrates you understand the protocol, respect academic integrity, and can act quickly.