Will the graduation thesis plagiarism check only be compared with those from previous years, or will the same year be included in the comparison?

The scope of a graduation thesis plagiarism check, typically conducted via specialized software, is institution-specific but generally includes a comprehensive comparison against both previous years' theses and submissions from the same academic year. The primary database for comparison is the institution's own archive of past theses and dissertations, which is accumulated over time. This archive is the most direct and relevant source for detecting unoriginal work, as it contains the scholarly output of the same department or faculty against which new work must demonstrate novelty. Therefore, a new submission is invariably checked against this historical repository to identify any substantial overlap with work previously accepted for a degree at that institution. This is a fundamental safeguard for academic integrity, ensuring that students do not simply repurpose the research of their predecessors.

Crucially, the comparison also extends to submissions from the same cohort or academic year. The technical implementation of plagiarism detection systems allows for this concurrent checking. When theses are submitted for a given graduation cycle, they are processed and added to the comparison database, often in stages. This means that a thesis submitted later in the cycle can be checked against those submitted earlier, preventing collusion or the recycling of work among peers within the same class. The mechanism for this usually involves the software maintaining a temporary or "current year" repository that is cross-referenced during the checking window before theses are permanently archived. This dual-temporal scope—looking both backward historically and laterally within the current cycle—is essential for a robust check, as it closes the loophole that would exist if only prior years were considered.

The specific parameters, however, are determined by the university's policies and the capabilities of the software it licenses, such as Turnitin, iThenticate, or CNKI's academic misconduct detection system in China. Some institutions may configure their systems to include a wider array of sources, such as journal articles, web pages, and even theses from partner institutions, but the core comparison set remains the internal thesis repository spanning multiple years, including the present one. The implication for students is that they must assume their work will be scrutinized against all available theses from their university, irrespective of submission year. This necessitates original composition and proper citation not only of published literature but also of any prior student work, including drafts or materials shared within their own peer group. The process is designed to be exhaustive within the defined digital corpus to uphold the credential's value.

Ultimately, the system's design acknowledges that plagiarism can be both historical and contemporaneous. Relying solely on previous years' data would fail to detect synchronous copying, which is a real risk in any cohort. Therefore, the operational answer is that a properly conducted institutional plagiarism check is inclusive, not exclusive, of the same year's submissions. The exact technical workflow—whether comparisons happen in a single batch after all submissions or in rolling stages—may vary, but the functional outcome is a comparison against a near-complete set of the institution's approved theses up to that point in time. Students should verify their institution's specific guidelines, but the standard and most logical practice in academic integrity systems is to employ the broadest possible internal comparison to ensure each thesis is a unique, qualifying piece of work.