Revise
Overclaiming relative to sample
The claim that re-purposing was most visible in the post-merger setting needs site-by-site counts before it can carry argumentative weight.
Read the rule behind thisWhat's in The room
Four modules. One thesis. Every flag tied to a source.
Thesisroom reads your thesis once and runs four modules on it. Each module has a job. Each output points back to a source you can verify, in your work or in the academic record. Below is what each module does, how it does it, and what to expect when you run one.
Module one
Mock viva
Examiner-grade questions, anchored to your thesis.
What it does
Thesisroom reads your full thesis once. It identifies the lines of attack a committee is most likely to take: methodology choices, generalisability, theoretical alignment, contribution claims. It generates thirty to fifty questions ranked by difficulty, each tied to a specific passage in your work.
Inside a session you receive one question at a time. You answer in writing or by voice. Thesisroom scores the response on clarity, depth, and accuracy, then offers a coached follow-up. At the end of a session, a report names your three weakest areas and recommends what to revisit.
What you see
Question 12 of 47
Your fourth chapter argues that procedural justice mediates the effect of leader humility on team voice. How do you defend that mediation against the reverse-causality reading the data also supports?
Reverse causality
From your thesis · p. 134
The dyadic models reported in Table 4.3 indicate that variance in team voice is most strongly accounted for by the perceived procedural justice composite, and only weakly by leader humility absent that mediator.
Sample scored response
I anchor the mediation in the two-wave subset reported in chapter four, where leader humility at T1 predicts procedural justice at T2 but not the reverse. I acknowledge the cross-sectional design cannot rule out reverse causality outright, and I present the mediation as the more parsimonious reading rather than a settled claim.
Clarity
Depth
Accuracy
Clear thesis and an honest concession. Tighten the link between the two-wave evidence and the specific causal claim before the committee presses on the sample size.
How it works
Reads your work.
Thesisroom parses your thesis and identifies the claims, methodology choices, and theoretical commitments that carry the most weight.
Anchors every question.
Each generated question references a specific passage. The interface lets you open that passage in one click, with the relevant sentence highlighted.
Scores honestly.
Responses are evaluated against rubrics tuned to your level and field. Thesisroom tells you when an answer is weak, not when an answer is fine.
What it does not do
Thesisroom does not write your answers. It does not feed you talking points to memorise. The questions are designed to make you think, not to give you a script.
Module two
Citation guard
Every reference, checked against the academic record.
What it does
Thesisroom extracts every entry in your bibliography. For each one it checks whether the DOI resolves, whether the journal exists, whether the paper has been retracted, and whether the cited paper actually says what you claim it says. The result is a traffic-light list. Green is verified. Orange is flagged. Magenta is unverifiable.
Most of this work is not done by reasoning. Thesisroom queries Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, Retraction Watch, and DOAJ directly. Judgement is reserved for the final step: whether a specific claim in your text is supported by the cited paper's abstract. Every flag shows the source that produced it, so you can verify the verdict yourself.
What you see
Source response
Crossref returned a resolving DOI with matching authors and year. OpenAlex confirmed the journal and the work's place in the citation graph.
How it works
Five academic registries.
Crossref handles DOI resolution. OpenAlex covers author disambiguation and non-journal works. Semantic Scholar provides abstracts for claim verification. Retraction Watch flags retracted papers. DOAJ catches predatory open-access venues.
Deterministic where possible.
Most citation problems are caught by direct database lookups. Whether a paper exists is answered by the registry, not by a model's memory.
Never invents citations.
Thesisroom cannot suggest a citation you did not include. There is no code path for that. The bibliography you upload is the universe.
What it does not do
Thesisroom does not rewrite your citations. It does not generate replacement references. The audit names what is wrong. The fix stays yours.
Module three
Structural critic
The chapter audit your supervisor never has time to give.
What it does
Thesisroom reads each chapter of your thesis against the standards of your field. It returns marginal comments anchored to specific sentences, classified by severity: must address, revise, or consider. Each comment names what is wrong and why, and links to the heuristic or rule behind it.
The output looks like document margin comments, not a chat. You see your chapter in the centre and the comments in the right margin, each tied to a passage by a dotted line. You can mark a comment resolved as you work through them.
What you see
Chapter 3 · §3.2
The interviews revealed three recurring orientations toward institutional voice, which I label endorsement, withdrawal, and re-purposing. Each orientation appeared across all four sites, though re-purposing was most visible in the post-merger setting. The next section reads these patterns against the typology proposed by Hirschman.
Taken together, the findings establish that procedural justice is the dominant mechanism through which humility shapes voice, a result that holds across the full sample and resolves the tension left open in the literature.
Must address
Theoretical framework not reapplied in analysis
Hirschman's typology is named here but never used to interpret the three orientations. Either apply it or drop the reference.
Read the rule behind thisHow it works
Rule-based and reasoning-based.
Missing sections, undefined terminology, and citations introduced in late chapters that never appeared in the literature review are caught by rules. Overclaiming, theoretical alignment, and argument structure need real reading.
Field-aware.
A chemistry chapter and a history chapter get audited against different standards. Your field selection on signup decides which rubric applies.
Comments, not rewrites.
Every output is a margin comment. Thesisroom does not produce replacement paragraphs.
What it does not do
Thesisroom does not ghostwrite. It does not produce alternative drafts. The audit names where work is needed. The writing stays yours.
Module four
Source finder
Real papers for the claim you need to support.
What it does
Paste the sentence where you need a citation. Thesisroom reads the verifiable claim in it, searches the academic databases, and returns real papers in the order the databases rank them. Each result carries an abstract, a citation count, open-access status, and a one-click link to read it.
It is a research aid for your decision, not a recommendation engine. You enter the claim you have already decided to argue, the search returns real work, and you choose which paper, if any, supports it. Nothing is auto-inserted into your thesis.
What you see
The passage you need a citation for
Rising sovereign debt deepens the economic damage of climate shocks, creating a feedback loop that constrains adaptation spending in the most exposed economies.
How it works
Claim, not topic.
You paste the sentence you need to support. Thesisroom extracts the verifiable claim and the search keywords from it, never a citation.
The database ranks, not a model.
Results come back in the academic databases' own relevance order. Thesisroom does not sort them by a model's opinion or mark one as the answer.
Every result is verified.
This is Citation guard run in reverse. Retracted papers and papers without an abstract are filtered out, so you see only work that would pass the same checks.
What it does not do
Thesisroom does not invent sources and does not pick one for you. It does not write your in-text citation and does not auto-replace anything. The choice stays yours.
All four, one upload
Four modules. One thesis. One source of truth.
You upload your thesis once. Thesisroom parses it once. The four modules then run against the same parsed text, the same bibliography, the same field rubric. A flag in Citation guard cross-references with a comment in Structural critic, and a flagged citation opens Source finder pre-filled with the passage it came from. A weak answer in Mock viva can route you back to the relevant chapter.
Replacing your thesis creates a new version, and every previous run stays available. You can compare two runs side by side and see what improved, what got worse, and what you still need to address before your defense.
Thesisroom is a defense preparation tool, not a writing service. We do not rewrite text to bypass plagiarism detectors. We do not fabricate citations. We do not ghostwrite chapters. We support the same standard your committee holds you to.