A concern that a project report “sounds like AI” needs a specific explanation: it may concern unclear writing, unsupported claims, authorship or a breach of the assignment's tool-use rules. A word list or detector percentage cannot by itself reconstruct how you produced the work. Ask what the concern is, preserve your records and respond under your institution's procedure.
This guide is about clear, evidenced academic work and fair review. It does not provide ways to bypass a detector or conceal prohibited assistance.
The strongest starting point is work you can explain and evidence you can trace. If your institution permits AI assistance, UniDraft helps organise your confirmed material and guidelines into an editable project document, keeping earlier versions when you apply corrections. Start your project document with UniDraft, review every claim and reference, and disclose assistance as your rules require. No detector result or academic outcome is guaranteed.
What can writing style tell you?
A vague paragraph may need revision because it does not explain the study. That is a writing problem, not proof of who wrote it. Formal vocabulary, equal-length paragraphs and a polished tone can occur in both human and machine-assisted writing.
Kobak and colleagues' study of excess vocabulary in biomedical publications, published in Science Advances in 2025, examined changes across a large collection of PubMed abstracts. Its estimate that at least 13.5% of 2024 abstracts were processed with language models is a corpus-level estimate in that setting. It is not a detector for an individual student's paragraph or an estimate for Nigerian undergraduate projects. The four authors are Dmitry Kobak, Rita González-Márquez, Emőke-Ágnes Horvát and Jan Lause.
Do not replace ordinary words simply because someone labelled them “AI words”. Instead ask:
- What precise claim does this sentence make?
- What observation, source or reasoning supports it?
- Does the wording match what the study actually did?
- Does the paragraph help answer the research question?
An unsupported sentence remains unsupported after a synonym swap. A real limitation should be described because it affects interpretation, not because it makes writing seem more human.
A worked example: replace vague claims with evidence
The following is a fictional teaching example, not a real student's work or a result to copy.
Vague: “The findings demonstrate the importance of an effective irrigation system.”
Specific: “During the fictional 14-day test, the controller kept soil moisture within the study's stated target range on 12 days. On two days watering was delayed; the test log records a low battery voltage. The discussion considers whether the power supply contributed.”
The second version separates the observation from an interpretation that still needs evidence. It does not establish human authorship, and adding such details without real records would be fabrication. In your own report, use your actual measurements, dates and uncertainty. See writing the results chapter from your own evidence.
What detector research does and does not establish
In a 2023 evaluation, Weber-Wulff and colleagues tested 12 publicly available detection tools and two commercial systems. They reported accuracy and reliability problems under their study conditions. That is evidence about the tested systems and materials, not a current benchmark for every detector.
Liang and colleagues' 2023 study of native and non-native English writing samples found misclassification of non-native English writing by the detectors they examined. The result warrants care about fairness in that setting; it does not supply an error rate for your university, your report or all Nigerian students.
A low score does not certify that tool use complied with your rules. A high score does not explain which assistance was used, whether it was permitted or how the document developed. Keep tool results distinct from source accuracy, the authenticity of data and compliance with the actual assignment.
Check the rules before using assistance
Find the current university or faculty policy, your department's project instructions and the assignment requirements. If they are unclear, ask the appropriate supervisor or office to clarify:
- Which uses are permitted: brainstorming, grammar feedback, translation, drafting or something else?
- What acknowledgement or disclosure is required?
- May research, participant or workplace material be uploaded to an online service?
- Which records of assistance should you retain?
- What review procedure applies if a concern is raised?
Keep the response, but do not assume an informal permission overrides a binding institutional rule. Check current requirements rather than treating a dated online discussion as your school's policy.
Review the report for substance and clarity
Use this sequence whether you wrote unaided or used permitted assistance:
- Check the findings against the records. Keep the original data separate from cleaned or analysed versions. Explain genuine missing information and uncertainty without inventing a result.
- Check each source. Open the publication, verify bibliographic details and read the passage supporting the claim. The citation finder can help locate sources; a search result is a lead, not confirmation of a finding.
- Explain the method you actually followed. Do not leave an instrument or procedure in the abstract that never appears in the real study record. Compare with the methodology guide.
- Connect the literature. Compare relevant sources and explain what they contribute to your question rather than listing summaries. Use the literature review guide.
- Edit for the reader. Remove repeated claims, define unfamiliar terms and use sentences long enough to express the idea clearly. Do not manipulate sentence rhythm to chase a detector score.
- Report actual limitations. Explain how a real sampling, measurement or access limit affects interpretation. Do not invent a failure to make the report sound authentic.
Preserve a useful process record
Keep dated outlines, reading notes, successive drafts, original data, analysis records and relevant supervisor feedback. Record any permitted tool use with its date, purpose and what you checked or changed. Save corrections as new versions; managing project corrections provides a practical change record.
Protect participant and workplace information while doing this. Restrict access to raw data and identity keys as your consent and institutional requirements require. Do not upload confidential material merely to demonstrate that it exists.
These records support an explanation of your process. They are not automatic proof of authorship, nor a guarantee that a concern cannot arise. File timestamps alone do not establish who made a change.
Respond when a concern is raised
Preserve the submitted or flagged version before revising it. Ask which passages, evidence and rules are in question and what response deadline and review procedure apply. Gather genuine records relevant to those passages; do not manufacture retrospective drafts or delete evidence of assistance.
Explain the method, sources and decisions in the form the institution permits. If a live explanation is requested and you need an accessibility adjustment, use the appropriate support route. Difficulty speaking under pressure does not by itself establish misconduct.
If you used assistance, describe it accurately and provide the required acknowledgement. If you dispute the allegation, use the institution's review or appeal process and keep copies of your response. This guide cannot predict the outcome or replace the actual regulations.
Pre-submission check
- The current rules and required disclosure have been checked.
- Every finding is supported by actual evidence, and interpretations are distinguished from observations.
- Sources have been opened and checked; fictional examples have not become study findings.
- Methods, numbers and terminology agree across the document.
- Genuine limitations are explained without invented incidents.
- Relevant drafts and records are retained with appropriate privacy protections.
- The final document has been read in full, including tables, references and appendices.
Check layout separately with the free formatting checker or the university format guides, subject to your confirmed instructions. Formatting checks do not establish authorship, source truth or permission to use AI.
Where UniDraft fits
UniDraft supports the written project, seminar or SIWES report as an editable Word document from the material and guidelines you confirm. Supervisor instructions and student-confirmed guidelines take precedence over general departmental and university patterns. Review the output against your actual records and verify every source; the software does not replace your research or institutional approval.
If your rules permit this assistance, start your document and keep a record of what you supplied, checked and changed. UniDraft does not promise undetectable text, acceptance or a grade.
Sources
- Kobak et al.: Delving into LLM-assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary, 2025, published article DOI. Corpus-level biomedical vocabulary research, not an individual-authorship test.
- Liang et al.: GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers, 2023. Findings concern the samples and detectors examined.
- Weber-Wulff et al.: Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text, 2023. Historical evaluation of 14 systems, not a universal present-day accuracy claim.
