When and How to Paraphrase
Table of Contents
What is a paraphrase?
A paraphrase is a retelling of relevant information from your consulted source materials, summarised in your own words. We paraphrase when we want to convey the general gist of an academic source (peer reviewed paper, book chapter, monograph…), or even a particular argument the original author has made. We can also paraphrase when we can’t find a good way to incorporate the author’s specific phrasing into our text, or when we simply think we have found a better way to make the same point. A simple example, summarising one of the main points of an academic article could look like this:
✨ Best Practice
In a recent paper published in the journal Variants, Dovilė Gervytė explores the born-digital writing process of Lithuanian author Tomas Vaiseta’s recent novel Ch. (Gervytė 2025).
For an example of a more precise paraphrase of a particular argument in the source text, consider the paper’s closing paragraph, which reads:
As Peter Robinson asked, “exactly what is the text which the editor represents as present in the document?” (2013, 113). Suppose we approach the geneticist’s narrative of reconstruction as a practice of selecting, combining, and disclosing aspects of the textual materials under development. Whichever narrative path the geneticist takes in his study (sometimes manuscript analysis resembles a detective story, sometimes a bildungsroman), structuring the narrative of the avant-texte is akin to playing with a kaleidoscope. Each time the critic returns to the manuscripts, the fragments of the avant-texte fall into slightly new (sometimes contradictory) interpretive combinations. In the case of born-digital manuscripts, these combinations can also acquire a distinctive hue depending on the voice of the agent involved in producing textual variants. To tell the story of the reconstruction of genesis is trying to catch the sparrow as it is about to fly away.
(Gervytė 2025, ¶34)
From which we may distil the following paraphrase:
✨ Best Practice
In her concluding remarks, Gervytė argues that the exercise of reconstructing a work’s writing process may be even more challenging when we are working with born-digital materials (Gervytė 2025).
Using your own words
The operative phrase in the first sentence of our definition of a paraphrase in the above is: ‘in your own words’. This means that when we paraphrase, we should be careful not to rely too much on the original author’s wording, and really try to find our own way of phrasing the point. In many cases, we use paraphrases to summarise larger arguments and overarching narratives in the source we are referencing. In those cases, using your own words is almost inevitable. But sometimes we may want to paraphrase a specific argument that the author made in a particular paragraph or even one or two sentences. When this is the case, many writers will find it difficult to ‘un-hear’ the original wording, and come up with a new way of making the same point. If you recognise yourself here, consider selectively quoting the original rather than paraphrasing in these instances. The alternative – reusing some of the original wording, but treating it as a paraphrase rather than a quote – is considered very bad practice, and may sometimes even be regarded as a form of plagiarism. Obviously, this is something you should try to avoid in your own writing.
An example may help clear this up. Consider again Gervytė’s closing paragraph, quoted above, and say that we want to paraphrase a specific point she is making. Specifically, we are interested in conveying the meaning of her penultimate sentence. I will start by giving a bad example, an example of how not to do it, to hopefully make it clear what is problematic here, and why.
🛑 Bad Practice
For born-digital manuscripts, the agents who produce the textual variants can give those combinations a distinctive hue (Gervytė 2025, ¶34).
Arguably, this example brings Gervytė’s original point across in a somewhat more concise manner. And it is undeniable that the sentence itself has been modified considerably (changing word order, agency, etc.). But still: most of the words have been lifted from the source verbatim (or, in some cases, with minimal alterations). And since we did not use quotation marks, the implication is that this is a paraphrase rather than a quote, which means that we are effectively dressing up the author’s words as our own – which is a form of plagiarism. A redeeming factor in this example would be that the parenthetical reference at least pinpoints the exact location of the original argument, by referencing its paragraph number. This both encourages the reader to look up the original, and implies that we are trying to give credit where credit is due. This arguably indicates that there is no intention to plagiarise on our end. But the fact remains that without looking up the original (which may not always be possible, especially in the case of older, rarer, printed materials), there is no way for the reader discern who said what, exactly; or who came up with the ‘hue’ metaphor for instance. This is highly problematic and considered bad practice.
A better practice would be to try to find a way to paraphrase the argument in a way that does not repeat quite so many of the original’s words. For example:
⚠ Good Practice, but better below
In her paper, Gervytė argues that the editor’s interpretation of the avant-texte can be coloured by those who made changes to the drafts – especially when working with born-digital writing processes (Gervytė 2025, ¶34).
However, when we’re particularly interested in a specific claim that was made by the author, that can be pinpointed to a precise place in the source, it may be more appropriate to just quote the source directly. Or, when you think the original phrasing could be improved, you could include a quote inside your paraphrase instead. This would allow you to clarify the author’s text, while also preserving some of their metaphors or other apt phrasings. For example:
✨ Best Practice
As Gervytė argues, the people involved in changing the drafts can give the editor’s interpretation of the avant-texte “a distinctive hue” (Gervytė 2025, ¶34).
In-text references for paraphrases
Referencing the author and year
When we are paraphrasing someone else’s work, we always have to include an in-text reference. Failing to do so is considered a form of plagiarism. The only exception to this rule would be when all the relevant referencing information is already present in our text, making it unambiguously clear where the paraphrase is coming from. For example, our very first example of a paraphrase, mentioned above, could also be phrased as follows:
✨ Best Practice
In a recent paper published in the journal Variants (2025), Dovilė Gervytė explores the born-digital writing process of Lithuanian author Tomas Vaiseta’s recent novel Ch.
Here, both the author’s name and the source’s year of publication are already incorporated in our description of the source, allowing the reader to easily find the source in our reference list, thereby foregoing the need to include the full in-text reference at the end of the sentence. Note, however, that the year is still parenthesised, even in this example, which could be interpreted as an abbreviated version of the parenthetical reference in itself. Technically, it would be possible to remove even this, e.g., by replacing the word “recent” with the year “2025”, or by exchanging the entire phrase “In a recent paper published in the journal Variants (2025)” with “In a paper published in 2025”. All these forms are considered correct, and choosing between them is largely a personal preference – although some uses may be more acceptable in specific cultures, (sub)disciplines, publication venues, etc. In general, however, we would encourage you to use either of the two examples given above, for improved clarity.
Finally, it should go without saying that even when the author and year of your paraphrased source are mentioned solely in your description, you should never forget include the full reference in your text’s bibliography. Failing to do so renders your bibliography incomplete, which may result in the downgrading or failure of your assignments.
Referencing page numbers etc.
Especially when we are summarising a complete source, or when we are paraphrasing an extended argument that is returned to at several points in a larger academic source (like a monograph), it is not always possible to link our paraphrase to a specific place in our source materials. That is why, for paraphrases (unlike quotes!) it is not always necessary to include page numbers (or other locators) in your parethetical in-text reference. Indeed, several of the examples above only include an author and a year. Because of this, you may find resources online that tell you that when you are following the APA 7 guidelines (the default referencing system used in our courses), referencing page numbers etc. in the in-text references for paraphrases is optional, discouraged, or even prohibited. This is, however, misleading information that encourages bad practice and lazy writing. Instead, we expect you to always be as precise as possible when you are referencing other people’s work, also when you are paraphrasing your source materials.
Referencing page or paragraph numbers where relevant is considered best practice, and a practice we expect you to adhere to as you are fine-tuning your academic writing skills. Doing so is a common curtesy to your readers, who may find your research relevant, and want to look up the claims you are referencing for their own research purposes. But it also increases your accountability: it gives your readers a chance to verify your claims, and judge for themselves if they agree with your interpretation of the source materials. This in turn helps to build the reader’s trust in your judgment and academic integrity.
For all these reasons, you should always reference a page number (or other locator) when you are paraphrasing a specific claim that can be traced back to a particular sentence or paragraph in your source materials. Some good examples of how to do so can be found in the above. It is also possible to reference particularly relevant sections or chapters in the source materials. More information on how to do so can be found in the page on page numbers and other locators.
References
Gervytė, D. (2025). The Author Husband, the Publisher Wife, and the Humble Servant Editor, or A Scholar Chasing a Sparrow. Variants. The Journal of the European Society for Textual Scholarship, (19), 97–120. https://doi.org/10.4000/15do6