In 99% of cases, there is a big difference between plagiarism and citation in the paper.

In normal paper writing, the probability of a large number of original similarities is extremely low, so referring to other people's things will naturally say something.

The original thing is your own, no matter how generous you write, you are not afraid of shadows, and you can't get close to the border.

Quote other people's words, and other people's opinions mark the source. It's as simple as filling out a library card.

Therefore, if you have no idea of plagiarism at all and operate according to academic norms, this boundary is difficult to reach.

Those who are particularly concerned about where the boundary is are either legal researchers or want to exploit loopholes.

For these people, if you say that using other people's things is not plagiarism, they will be entangled: how much did you use?

You give a ratio of 50%, and they wonder why this ratio is reasonable. Is 49% plagiarism?

The fact is, no matter how strict the line you set, as long as the line is thick, that's their room to play.

No matter how clear this line is, for some people, it is just taking advantage of the difference in difficulty.

They should study "the realm of plagiarism", sum up experiences and lessons, and exploit loopholes in the rules.

If you want to play something ambiguous, for example, half the article is enclosed in quotation marks. ...

Don't blame others, ask yourself first, is this how you write articles? Why walk a tightrope when you have nothing to do?