A thesis checked once, on the assembled document, days before submission is checked too late to act on. A flagged literature review at that point means rewriting a chapter that three later chapters are built on, with no time to do it and a supervisor who has already signed off on the version you are about to change.
We check theses the way they are written — chapter by chapter, as each chapter stops moving, with the full report each time and every flagged passage classified. Then once more on the assembled document, because the full-document check catches what chapter checks cannot: repetition between chapters, and text carried over from your own approved proposal.
Most of the theses we check are ones we had no part in writing. Send the chapter you are least sure about and you get the report, the classification, and an honest answer on what actually needs doing — frequently nothing, on a well-referenced chapter.
Similarity and AI writing indicator reports come with every delivery, and we run them on work you wrote yourself too. You get the reports and the explanation, never a bare figure.
We are an independent academic support service, not a university and not a reseller of any detection platform. We run checks and issue the resulting reports; we do not sell access to a detection tool, and we do not sell a way around one.
A thesis is not one document as far as a similarity report is concerned. The introduction matches on standard contextual statements and widely quoted national statistics, usually fine once cited. The literature review is the highest-risk chapter because it is built from other people's writing. The methodology matches on procedural language the discipline cannot phrase differently. Results is normally the cleanest chapter in the document, because it is your own data — which is exactly why a match there is worth looking at closely.
Knowing which chapter you are looking at changes what a number means. A 30% literature review made of correctly cited paraphrase and quoted definitions is a normal chapter. A 30% results chapter is a question. Reading the same figure the same way in both places is how students end up rewriting the wrong thing.
The genuine problem in a Nepali thesis is almost always paraphrase in the literature review that stayed too close to its source, and it is almost never deliberate — it happens when you write with the source open. The fix is to read the passage, close the source, and write what it said from memory, then cite it.
Your supervisor's turnaround is what decides your submission date. A fortnight per round and three rounds on a chapter is six weeks of calendar time for that chapter, however fast you write. Checks have to sit inside that rhythm: run one when a chapter has stopped moving structurally and before it goes to your supervisor, because a flagged paragraph is far cheaper to fix before comments have been built on top of it.
Run a second check after any substantial rewrite. It is the only way to know the rewriting worked, and discovering that it did not at submission is the outcome the whole exercise exists to prevent.
Then leave at least a week between the final full-document check and the deadline. The entire value of a report is the time you have left to act on it, and a report that arrives the night before submission is the same as no report at all.
Where your institution's configuration produces an AI writing indicator, run it by chapter too. A flag concentrated in the methodology is telling you about the genre before it tells you anything about the writer — that chapter is formulaic by design, and formulaic prose is what these systems respond to. A flag spread evenly across every chapter is a different signal and worth taking more seriously as a prompt to check your own evidence.
Do not rewrite to move the score. There is no editing operation that reliably lowers an AI figure on honest work, and paraphrasing tools raise it because their output is itself generated. What answers an AI flag is the drafting trail, and a thesis is the one document where that trail is easy to build, because it accumulates over months anyway.
Keep chapter drafts as separate dated files, keep your supervisor's comments and your replies, keep the notes and the abandoned sections. Nobody writes a thesis in one pass, and the evidence of that is worth more than any percentage on either score.
Once it has stopped moving structurally and before it goes to your supervisor, then again after any substantial rewrite, then once on the assembled document with at least a week before the deadline. Checking only at the end leaves you a flagged literature review and no time to rebuild it.
Because it is built from other people's writing, and paraphrase drifts close to the source when you draft with the source open beside you. Most of that match is correctly cited and fine; the part that needs work is uncited text tracking a source closely, and it is usually a much smaller share than the percentage suggests.
If your proposal was submitted to the same repository, yes — and some departments treat self-matching seriously even though it is your own writing. It is one of the main reasons to run a check on the assembled document rather than only on chapters.
Most of them, yes. Send the chapter or the full document and you get the report, every flagged passage classified, and an honest read on what needs doing.
No. We do not promise a similarity figure or an AI score, and we will not rewrite work solely to move a detector. What we can do is tell you exactly where your document stands and what a defensible version of it looks like.
Completely. Your work and your identity are never shared with your college or anyone else, and our checks do not add your document to the repository your university submits against.
100%. Your identity and academic work stay completely private and are never shared with your college or anyone else. We use secure, encrypted communication.
Message us on WhatsApp at +977 9768768340 with your assignment brief and deadline, and we'll reply with a transparent quote — usually within a couple of hours.