lOEX-2011 61
-cite it right: critical assessment oF oPen source...-
cite it right: critical assessment oF oPen source
web-based citation generators
hui-Fen chang
introduction
Writing proper citations is a critically important part
of the research process. Citing involves careful documenting
the sources of those individuals whose ideas and studies have
direct inuence on one’s research. Citing sources acknowledges
the origin of information, and allows others to nd the source
materials. Instructing students when and how to cite is a
key component of information literacy initiatives for many
academic and research libraries. To further support students,
many libraries have purchased the licenses to bibliographic
management software packages such as RefWorks and EndNote
to help manage citations. Oklahoma State University provides
the Endnote software, and the library provides user training
and tech support to all students and faculty. EndNote has the
capability of importing citations directly from subscription
databases, and the capability of managing a large number
of bibliographies formatted in a variety of citation styles.
Nevertheless, the drawbacks of these products are several: they
are expensive, they have an extensive learning curve, and they
often require assistance from librarians.
Recently, a number of free or inexpensive Web-based
citation generators including EasyBib, NoodleBib, BibMe,
KnightCite, Citation Machine, Citation Builder and SourceAid
have emerged and gained the attention of students as well as
teaching librarians. These programs not only are very accessible
via the Web, they are designed to be easy to use. Input templates
are available in these programs that allow the users to quickly
and easily create citations in a variety of source types (books,
journals, magazines and newspapers); formats (print or online);
and output styles (MLA, APA or Chicago).
While these tools are designed to emphasize ease of
use, the accuracy of these programs remains to be investigated.
In other word, are any of these tools reliable enough to be
recommended to students? This study took a critical approach
to assess the accuracy of these citation generators. The ndings
of this study will hopefully shed some light on the suitability of
free web-based citation generators for college students.
literature review
While there are studies reviewing the bibliographic
management software packages like EndNote or RefWorks,
there is very little written about free Web-based citation
generators. Kessler (2007) reviewed the program of SourceAid
Pro PE, a Web-based citation generator. While SourceAid
Pro PE has some attractive features such as the capability of
generating bibliographies in APA, MLA, CMS and CSE,
Kessler noted that due to the errors produced in the program
and the lack of input instructions, users are very likely to
generate incorrect citations. Jennings (2003) compared basic
features of the citation generator EasyBib and the bibliographic
management software RefWorks. The author rated EasyBib
higher than RefWorks, despite the more advanced functionality
of RefWorks, noting that entering references manually is more
difcult in RefWorks than EasyBib, and that undergraduates
found RefWorks difcult to use and required more assistance
from librarians. Kessler and Van Ullen (2005) conducted a
thorough study comparing two citation generator programs,
EasyBib and NoodleBib with EndNote, for accuracy, ease of
use and suitability for an undergraduate environment. The study
Chang (Assistant Professor/Humanities &
Social Sciences Division)
Oklahoma State University [Stillwater, OK]
62 lOEX-2011 -chang-
analyzed bibliographies generated by these three programs in
the APA style format (5
th
edition). Errors were also categorized
into user errors, software errors and other error types, and the
overall results showed that NoodleBib generated the fewest
errors, and EasyBib produced the highest rate of errors. Kessler
and Van Ullen concluded that free programs such as NoodleBib
and EasyBib may offer some advantages to undergraduates, but
they also emphasized that some knowledge of proper citation
formats is necessary to use these programs effectively.
background
In order to determine which citation generators would
be examined in this study, two preliminary investigations
were undertaken by the author. A Google search for ‘Citation
Generator’ and a search for ‘Citation Builder’ were performed.
A web survey of 126 ARL member libraries was also conducted
to see what free citation generators were recommended by
libraries. Figure 1 shows the results of the survey of ARL member
libraries. Of the 39 ARL library websites that recommended
citation generators by linking, 20 libraries linked to Citation
Machine, 15 linked to EasyBib, 10 linked to BibMe, 9 linked
to KnightCite, 8 linked to NCSU Citation Builder, 4 linked to
NoodleBib Express, and 2 linked to UNC Citation Builder.
Figure 1: Number of Links of Citation Generators by
ARL Member Libraries
These same eight web-based citation generators were
elected for this study. To determine whether all eight citation
generators support the latest edition of the MLA, APA and
Chicago formats, a review of each citation generator’s website
was conducted. This step involved a review of the HELP section
or the Q&A section of the program homepage. The results are
listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Citation Styles and Editions Available in
Citation Generators
The results indicate that most of the free citation
programs support the latest (7
th
) edition of MLA. Five of the
eight citation generators support the latest (6
th
) edition of APA.
NoodleBib and EasyBib are the only programs that support the
latest editions of MLA, APA and Chicago styles. While most of
these programs are completely free, EasyBib offers free access
to MLA but requires subscription to use APA and Chicago.
data collection
Sample references from the current editions of the
MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (7
th
edition,
2009), Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association (6
th
edition, 2010), and The Chicago Manual of Style
(16
th
edition, 2010) were used to test the accuracy of citation
generators. A total of sixty-three sample references from three
style manuals were selected. These sample references covered
commonly used source types including: book by a single
author; book by multiple authors; anthology; book chapter or a
work in an anthology; thesis or dissertation; journal, magazine
and newspaper articles; entry in a reference work; and website.
Twenty-two sample references were selected from the MLA
handbook, 18 sample references were selected from the APA
manual, and 23 references were selected from the Chicago
manual.
Sample references were then manually entered into
citation generators by the author to create bibliographies for
data analysis. The bibliographies were then reviewed and
compared to the sample references from the citation manuals
to determine the accuracy of the free citation programs. Errors
were then recorded and categorized in Excel spreadsheets. Errors
were categorized as the following: incorrect capitalization;
punctuation error; improperly formatted retrieval statement;
publication date; problem with volume or issue information;
problem with formatted page number; error in publisher and/
or place of publication; and syntax errors, which involved
incorrect placement of elements within a citation. An example
of a syntax error is:
(1) Bordo, Susan, Pamela R. Matthews, and David
McWhirter. “The Moral Content of Nobokov’s Lolita.” Aesthetic
Subjects. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2003. 125-52. Print.
The correct format based on MLA is:
(2) Bordo, Susan. “The Moral Content of Nobokov’s
Lolita.” Aesthetic Subjects. Ed. Pamela R. Matthews and David
McWhirter. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2003. 125-52.
Print.
If multiple types of errors were present within any
citation, each error was noted. If the source output template was
not included in the free software (for example, several programs
lacked the templates for theses and dissertations), this was
recorded and categorized as an error.
error analysis oF mla style Format
A total of twenty-two sample references from the MLA
Handbook for Writers of Research Papers were entered into
seven of the eight citation generators—no sample references
were entered in SourceAid since it did not support the current
3
that due to the errors produced in the program and the lack of input instructions, users are
very likely to generate incorrect citations. Jennings (2003) compared basic features of
the citation generator EasyBib and the bibliographic management software RefWorks.
The author rated EasyBib higher than RefWorks, despite the more advanced functionality
of RefWorks, noting that entering references manually is more difficult in RefWorks than
EasyBib, and that undergraduates found RefWorks difficult to use and required more
assistance from librarians. Kessler and Van Ullen (2005) conducted a thorough study
comparing two citation generator programs, EasyBib and NoodleBib with EndNote, for
accuracy, ease of use and suitability for an undergraduate environment. The study
analyzed bibliographies generated by these three programs in the APA style format (5
th
edition). Errors were also categorized into user errors, software errors and other error
types, and the overall results showed that NoodleBib generated the fewest errors, and
EasyBib produced the highest rate of errors. Kessler and Van Ullen concluded that free
programs such as NoodleBib and EasyBib may offer some advantages to undergraduates,
but they also emphasized that some knowledge of proper citation formats is necessary to
use these programs effectively.
Background
In order to determine which citation generators would be examined in this study,
two preliminary investigations were undertaken by the author. A Google search for
„Citation Generator‟ and a search for „Citation Builder’ were performed. A web survey of
126 ARL member libraries was also conducted to see what free citation generators were
recommended by libraries. Figure 1 shows the results of the survey of ARL member
libraries. Of the 39 ARL library websites that recommended citation generators by
linking, 20 libraries linked to Citation Machine, 15 linked to EasyBib, 10 linked to
BibMe, 9 linked to KnightCite, 8 linked to NCSU Citation Builder, 4 linked to
NoodleBib Express, and 2 linked to UNC Citation Builder.
Figure 1. Number of Links of Citation Generators by ARL Member Libraries
These same eight web-based citation generators were elected for this study. To
determine whether all eight citation generators support the latest edition of the MLA,
APA and Chicago formats, a review of each citation generator‟s website was conducted.
This step involved a review of the HELP section or the Q&A section of the program
homepage. The results are listed in Table 1.
0
10
20
30
Citation
Machine
EasyBib
BibMe
KnightCite
NCSU
Citation
Builder
NoodleBib
UNC
Citation
Builder
4
Table 1. Citation Styles and Editions Available in Citation Generators
MLA
APA
Chicago
NoodleBib Express
7
6
16
EasyBib
7
6 (subscription required)
16 (subscription required)
KnightCite
7
6
15
Citation Machine
7
6
15
NCSU Citation Builder
7
6
N/A
UNC Citation Builder
7
5
15
BibMe
7
5
15
SourceAid
6
5
15
The results indicate that most of the free citation programs support the latest (7
th
) edition
of MLA. Five of the eight citation generators support the latest (6
th
) edition of APA.
NoodleBib and EasyBib are the only programs that support the latest editions of MLA,
APA and Chicago styles. While most of these programs are completely free, EasyBib
offers free access to MLA but requires subscription to use APA and Chicago.
Data Collection
Sample references from the current editions of the MLA Handbook for Writers of
Research Papers (7
th
edition, 2009), Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association (6
th
edition, 2010), and The Chicago Manual of Style (16
th
edition, 2010)
were used to test the accuracy of citation generators. A total of sixty-three sample
references from three style manuals were selected. These sample references covered
commonly used source types including: book by a single author; book by multiple
authors; anthology; book chapter or a work in an anthology; thesis or dissertation;
journal, magazine and newspaper articles; entry in a reference work; and website.
Twenty-two sample references were selected from the MLA handbook, 18 sample
references were selected from the APA manual, and 23 references were selected from the
Chicago manual.
Sample references were then manually entered into citation generators by the
author to create bibliographies for data analysis. The bibliographies were then reviewed
and compared to the sample references from the citation manuals to determine the
accuracy of the free citation programs. Errors were then recorded and categorized in
Excel spreadsheets. Errors were categorized as the following: incorrect capitalization;
lOEX-2011 63-cite it right: critical assessment oF oPen source...-
edition of MLA. Of the twenty-two sample references, fourteen
were print publications and eight were web publications. These
sample references are further detailed in Table 2:
Table 2: Sample References from MLA Handbook
Figure 2 shows the total number of errors generated
by each program in the MLA format. NoodleBib and EasyBib
produced the lowest numbers of incorrect citations in MLA
format-- 2 errors (or 9 percent of total errors) and 3 errors (13.6
percent of total errors) respectively, while Citation Machine
yielded the largest number, generating 19 errors (86 percent of
total errors).
Figure 2: Total Errors Produced by Citation
Generators in MLA Style
Figure 3 shows the errors produced from print sources
as compared to electronic sources for all seven programs.
Figure 3: Error by Formats in MLA
Citation Machine generated the highest number of
errors for print sources, while UNC Citation Builder produced
the highest number of errors for electronic sources. NoodleBib
and EasyBib did not produce any errors for print sources; all
errors were for electronic sources.
Several programs did not have the capability of
generating citations for specic source types such as PhD
dissertations. Only NoodleBib and EasyBib included templates
for theses and dissertations. Syntax errors were also common
in the citations produced by several citation programs. One such
syntax error came from the program’s inability to accommodate
different contributors to a source. An example citation is:
(3) Homer. The Odyssey. Trans. Robert Fagles. New
York: Viking, 1996. Print.
Several programs generated a error citation as:
(4) Homer, and Robert Fagles. The Odyssey. New
York: Viking, 1996.
error analysis oF the aPa style Format
To test the APA style citations, a total of eighteen
samples from the Publication Manual of the Psychological
Association were entered in NoodleBib, EasyBib, KnightCite,
Citation Machine and NCSU Citation Builder since they all
supported the latest edition of APA. Of the eighteen sample
references, seven were print sources and eleven were electronic
sources. These sample references are further detailed in Table
3:
Table 3: Sample References from
Publication Manual of APA
Figure 4 shows the total number of errors generated by
these programs. NoodleBib produced no errors in APA, while
EasyBib produced a total of 6 errors (33.3 percent of the total
number of errors) and Citation Machine yielded the largest
number, generating 14 errors (77.8 percent of total errors).
Figure 4: Total Errors Produced by Citation
Generators in APA Style
5
punctuation error; improperly formatted retrieval statement; publication date; problem
with volume or issue information; problem with formatted page number; error in
publisher and/or place of publication; and syntax errors, which involved incorrect
placement of elements within a citation. An example of a syntax error is:
(1) Bordo, Susan, Pamela R. Matthews, and David McWhirter. “The Moral Content of Nobokov’s
Lolita.” Aesthetic Subjects. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2003. 125-52. Print.
The correct format based on MLA is:
(2) Bordo,Susan. “The Moral Content of Nobokov’s Lolita.” Aesthetic Subjects. Ed. Pamela R.
Matthews and David McWhirter. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2003. 125-52. Print.
If multiple types of errors were present within any citation, each error was noted. If the
source output template was not included in the free software (for example, several
programs lacked the templates for theses and dissertations), this was recorded and
categorized as an error.
Error Analysis of MLA Style Format
A total of twenty-two sample references from the MLA Handbook for Writers of
Research Papers were entered into seven of the eight citation generators—no sample
references were entered in SourceAid since it did not support the current edition of MLA.
Of the twenty-two sample references, fourteen were print publications and eight were
web publications. These sample references are further detailed in Table 2:
Table 2. Sample References from MLA Handbook
Print Publications
Web Publications
Book by a single author
Book by more than 3 authors
An anthology
Book by a corporate author
Book in a subsequent edition
A translation
Published Dissertation
Work in an Anthology
Article in a specialized reference work
Article in a (well-known) encyclopedia
Entry in a (well-known) dictionary
Article in a scholarly journal
Article in a magazine
Article in a newspaper (non-consecutive
pages
)
Book, single author, Google Book Search
Dissertation
Article in a (well-known) online encyclopedia
Article in a scholarly journal, in library database
Article in a magazine, in library database
Article in a newspaper, non-consecutive pages, in
library database
Website
6
Figure 2 shows the total number of errors generated by each program in the MLA format.
NoodleBib and EasyBib produced the lowest numbers of incorrect citations in MLA
format-- 2 errors (or 9 percent of total errors) and 3 errors (13.6 percent of total errors)
respectively, while Citation Machine yielded the largest number, generating 19 errors (86
percent of total errors).
Figure 2. Total Errors Produced by Citation Generators in MLA Style
Figure 3 shows the errors produced from print sources as compared to electronic sources
for all seven programs.
Figure 3. Error by Formats in MLA
Citation Machine generated the highest number of errors for print sources, while UNC
Citation Builder produced the highest number of errors for electronic sources.
NoodleBib and EasyBib did not produce any errors for print sources; all errors were for
electronic sources.
Several programs did not have the capability of generating citations for specific
source types such as PhD dissertations. Only NoodleBib and EasyBib included templates
for theses and dissertations. Syntax errors were also common in the citations produced
by several citation programs. One such syntax error came from the program‟s inability to
accommodate different contributors to a source. An example citation is:
(3) Homer. The Odyssey. Trans. Robert Fagles. New York: Viking, 1996. Print.
Several programs generated a error citation as:
0 5 10 15 20
NoodleBib
KnightCite
NCSU Citation Builder
BibMe
# of errors
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
NoodleBib
EasyBib
KnightCite
Citation Machine
NCSU Citation Builder
UNC Citation Builder
BibMe
Electronic
Print
6
Figure 2 shows the total number of errors generated by each program in the MLA format.
NoodleBib and EasyBib produced the lowest numbers of incorrect citations in MLA
format-- 2 errors (or 9 percent of total errors) and 3 errors (13.6 percent of total errors)
respectively, while Citation Machine yielded the largest number, generating 19 errors (86
percent of total errors).
Figure 2. Total Errors Produced by Citation Generators in MLA Style
Figure 3 shows the errors produced from print sources as compared to electronic sources
for all seven programs.
Figure 3. Error by Formats in MLA
Citation Machine generated the highest number of errors for print sources, while UNC
Citation Builder produced the highest number of errors for electronic sources.
NoodleBib and EasyBib did not produce any errors for print sources; all errors were for
electronic sources.
Several programs did not have the capability of generating citations for specific
source types such as PhD dissertations. Only NoodleBib and EasyBib included templates
for theses and dissertations. Syntax errors were also common in the citations produced
by several citation programs. One such syntax error came from the program‟s inability to
accommodate different contributors to a source. An example citation is:
(3) Homer. The Odyssey. Trans. Robert Fagles. New York: Viking, 1996. Print.
Several programs generated a error citation as:
0 5 10 15 20
NoodleBib
KnightCite
NCSU Citation Builder
BibMe
# of errors
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
NoodleBib
EasyBib
KnightCite
Citation Machine
NCSU Citation Builder
UNC Citation Builder
BibMe
Electronic
Print
7
(4) Homer, and Robert Fagles. The Odyssey. New York: Viking, 1996.
Error Analysis of the APA Style Format
To test the APA style citations, a total of eighteen samples from the Publication
Manual of the Psychological Association were entered in NoodleBib, EasyBib,
KnightCite, Citation Machine and NCSU Citation Builder since they all supported the
latest edition of APA. Of the eighteen sample references, seven were print sources and
eleven were electronic sources. These sample references are further detailed in Table 3:
Table 3. Sample References from Publication Manual of APA
Print Sources
Electronic Sources
Entire book, single author
Book chapter
Reference book
Entry in a reference book
Article in a scholarly journal
Article in a magazine
Article in a newspaper, non-consecutive pages
Master‟s thesis, from a commercial database
PhD Dissertation, from an institutional
database
Electronic version of a book
Electronic only book
Entry in an online reference work
Entry in an online reference work, no
author/date
Journal articles, with DOI**
Journal article, with DOI, more than 7 authors
Online journal article, without DOI
Online magazine article, without DOI
Online newspaper article, without DOI
**DOI is an abbreviation for Digital Object Identifier, a
unique alphanumeric string (e.g. doi: 10.1086/597483)
assigned to a publication. As a digital identifier, a DOI
also provides a means of looking up the current location
of the publication on the Web. The latest editions of APA
(6
th
) and Chicago (16
th
) recommend the inclusion of a
DOI when it is available.
Figure 4 shows the total number of errors generated by these programs. NoodleBib
produced no errors in APA, while EasyBib produced a total of 6 errors (33.3 percent of
the total number of errors) and Citation Machine yielded the largest number, generating
14 errors (77.8 percent of total errors).
8
Figure 4. Total Errors Produced by Citation Generators in APA Style
Figure 5 sorts the APA errors by print or electronic format.
Figure 5. Error by Formats in APA
Citation Machine and NCSU Citation Builder produced the highest number of errors for
print formats (each produced 5 errors, or 71 percent of the total number of errors), while
Citation Machine generated the highest number of errors (9 errors, or 81 percent of total
errors) for electronic sources. A closer examination of electronic format errors revealed
that Citation Machine was the only program that generated errors in the online retrieval
statement where a DOI number was involved. The program provided a source template
for electronic sources that allows the users to fill in a URL and a DOI, but did not give
clear instructions to the users how to use DOIs versus URLs when citing online sources.
When both a DOI and a URL were entered in the template, the program Citation Machine
did not have the capability of generating only the DOI number in the citation, as
NoodleBib and EasyBib were able to.
KnightCite produced no errors for print sources but generated 8 errors (72.7
percent of total errors) for electronic sources. Most of these errors in KnightCite involved
incorrectly adding date of retrieval to citations where this information was not necessary.
According to APA, no retrieval date is needed for online sources unless the source
material may change over time such as Wikis. The incorrect citations generated in
KnightCite were mostly electronic books or an entry from an online reference work or
from an online periodical.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
NoodleBib
EasyBib
KnightCite
Citation Machine
NCSU Citation Builder
# of errors
0 2 4 6 8 10
NoodleBib
EasyBib
KnightCite
Citation Machine
NCSU Citation Builder
Electronic
Print
64 lOEX-2011 -chang-
Figure 5 sorts the APA errors by print or electronic
format.
Figure 5: Error by Formats in APA
Citation Machine and NCSU Citation Builder
produced the highest number of errors for print formats (each
produced 5 errors, or 71 percent of the total number of errors),
while Citation Machine generated the highest number of errors
(9 errors, or 81 percent of total errors) for electronic sources.
A closer examination of electronic format errors revealed that
Citation Machine was the only program that generated errors in
the online retrieval statement where a DOI number was involved.
The program provided a source template for electronic sources
that allows the users to ll in a URL and a DOI, but did not give
clear instructions to the users how to use DOIs versus URLs
when citing online sources. When both a DOI and a URL were
entered in the template, the program Citation Machine did not
have the capability of generating only the DOI number in the
citation, as NoodleBib and EasyBib were able to.
KnightCite produced no errors for print sources but
generated 8 errors (72.7 percent of total errors) for electronic
sources. Most of these errors in KnightCite involved incorrectly
adding date of retrieval to citations where this information was
not necessary. According to APA, no retrieval date is needed
for online sources unless the source material may change
over time such as Wikis. The incorrect citations generated in
KnightCite were mostly electronic books or an entry from an
online reference work or from an online periodical.
error analysis oF the chicago style Format
To test the Chicago style citations, a total of twenty-
two sample references from The Chicago Manual of Style were
entered in NoodleBib and EasyBib since these were the only
programs that supported the latest edition of Chicago. Of the
twenty-three sample references, twelve were print sources and
eleven were electronic sources. These sample references are
further detailed in Table 4:
Table 4: Sample References from
Chicago Manual of Style
Figure 6 shows the total number of errors produced by
NoodleBib and EasyBib when generating citations in Chicago
style. Both programs performed quite well in the Chicago style
format, as each produced only 2 errors (8 percent of the total
number of errors).
Figure 6: Total Errors Produced in Chicago Style
Figure 7 shows print versus electronic errors in Chicago
produced by NoodleBib and EasyBib. NoodleBib generated 1
error for print sources and 1 error for electronic sources, while
EasyBib generated 2 errors for electronic sources.
Figure 7: Error by Formats in Chicago Style
Incorrect citations in NoodleBib included minor errors
in the publication information. The errors produced in EasyBib
involved incorrect punctuation in the citation for a digital
dissertation in (5), and a syntax error in the citation for an entry
in an online encyclopedia in (6) where the title of article was
missing:
(5) Choi, Mihwa. Contesting Imaginaries in Death Rituals
during the North Song Dynasty. Diss., University of Chicago,
2008. ProQuest.
Compared to the citation given in The Chicago Manual of
Style:
Choi, Mihwa. “Contesting Imaginaries in Death Rituals
during the Northern Song Dynasty.” PhD diss., University of
8
Figure 4. Total Errors Produced by Citation Generators in APA Style
Figure 5 sorts the APA errors by print or electronic format.
Figure 5. Error by Formats in APA
Citation Machine and NCSU Citation Builder produced the highest number of errors for
print formats (each produced 5 errors, or 71 percent of the total number of errors), while
Citation Machine generated the highest number of errors (9 errors, or 81 percent of total
errors) for electronic sources. A closer examination of electronic format errors revealed
that Citation Machine was the only program that generated errors in the online retrieval
statement where a DOI number was involved. The program provided a source template
for electronic sources that allows the users to fill in a URL and a DOI, but did not give
clear instructions to the users how to use DOIs versus URLs when citing online sources.
When both a DOI and a URL were entered in the template, the program Citation Machine
did not have the capability of generating only the DOI number in the citation, as
NoodleBib and EasyBib were able to.
KnightCite produced no errors for print sources but generated 8 errors (72.7
percent of total errors) for electronic sources. Most of these errors in KnightCite involved
incorrectly adding date of retrieval to citations where this information was not necessary.
According to APA, no retrieval date is needed for online sources unless the source
material may change over time such as Wikis. The incorrect citations generated in
KnightCite were mostly electronic books or an entry from an online reference work or
from an online periodical.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
NoodleBib
EasyBib
KnightCite
Citation Machine
NCSU Citation Builder
# of errors
0 2 4 6 8 10
NoodleBib
EasyBib
KnightCite
Citation Machine
NCSU Citation Builder
Electronic
Print
9
Error Analysis of the Chicago Style Format
To test the Chicago style citations, a total of twenty-two sample references from
The Chicago Manual of Style were entered in NoodleBib and EasyBib since these were
the only programs that supported the latest edition of Chicago. Of the twenty-three
sample references, twelve were print sources and eleven were electronic sources. These
sample references are further detailed in Table 4:
Table 4. Sample References from Chicago Manual of Style
Print Sources
Electronic Sources
Book, one author
Book with an editor
Book, more than 2 authors
Book, more than 2 editors
Book, organization as author
Book, edition other than the first
Citing a multi-volume as a whole
Chapter in an edited book
Article in a journal
Article in a magazine
Article in a newspaper
Series title
Book published electronically, Kindle edition
Book published electronically, without DOI
Book published electronically, with DOI
Book review, consulted online
Online encyclopedia
Article in a journal, with DOI
Article in a journal, without DOI
Article in an online magazine
Article in an online newspaper
Digital dissertation
Website
Figure 6 shows the total number of errors produced by NoodleBib and EasyBib
when generating citations in Chicago style. Both programs performed quite well in the
Chicago style format, as each produced only 2 errors (8 percent of the total number of
errors).
Figure 6. Total Errors Produced in Chicago Style
Figure 7 shows print versus electronic errors in Chicago produced by NoodleBib and
EasyBib. NoodleBib generated 1 error for print sources and 1 error for electronic sources,
while EasyBib generated 2 errors for electronic sources.
0 1 2 3
NoodleBib
EasyBib
# of Error
9
Error Analysis of the Chicago Style Format
To test the Chicago style citations, a total of twenty-two sample references from
The Chicago Manual of Style were entered in NoodleBib and EasyBib since these were
the only programs that supported the latest edition of Chicago. Of the twenty-three
sample references, twelve were print sources and eleven were electronic sources. These
sample references are further detailed in Table 4:
Table 4. Sample References from Chicago Manual of Style
Print Sources
Electronic Sources
Book, one author
Book with an editor
Book, more than 2 authors
Book, more than 2 editors
Book, organization as author
Book, edition other than the first
Citing a multi-volume as a whole
Chapter in an edited book
Article in a journal
Article in a magazine
Article in a newspaper
Series title
Book published electronically, Kindle edition
Book published electronically, without DOI
Book published electronically, with DOI
Book review, consulted online
Online encyclopedia
Article in a journal, with DOI
Article in a journal, without DOI
Article in an online magazine
Article in an online newspaper
Digital dissertation
Website
Figure 6 shows the total number of errors produced by NoodleBib and EasyBib
when generating citations in Chicago style. Both programs performed quite well in the
Chicago style format, as each produced only 2 errors (8 percent of the total number of
errors).
Figure 6. Total Errors Produced in Chicago Style
Figure 7 shows print versus electronic errors in Chicago produced by NoodleBib and
EasyBib. NoodleBib generated 1 error for print sources and 1 error for electronic sources,
while EasyBib generated 2 errors for electronic sources.
0 1 2 3
NoodleBib
EasyBib
# of Error
10
Figure 7. Error by Formats in Chicago Style
Incorrect citations in NoodleBib included minor errors in the publication information.
The errors produced in EasyBib involved incorrect punctuation in the citation for a digital
dissertation in (5), and a syntax error in the citation for an entry in an online encyclopedia
in (6) where the title of article was missing:
(5) Choi, Mihwa. Contesting Imaginaries in Death Rituals during the North Song Dynasty.
Diss., University of Chicago, 2008. ProQuest.
Compared to the citation given in The Chicago Manual of Style:
Choi, Mihwa. “Contesting Imaginaries in Death Rituals during the Northern Song
Dynasty.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2008. ProQuest (AAT 3300426).
(6) Isaacson, Melissa. Encyclopedia of Chicago. Edited by Janice L. Reiff, Ann D. Keating, and
James R. Grossman. Chicago: Chicago Historical Society, 2005.
http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/184.html
Compared to the citation given in The Chicago Manual of Style:
Isaacson, Melissa. “Bulls.” In Encyclopedia of Chicago, edited by Janice L. Reiff, Ann D.
Keating, and James R. Grossman. Chicago Historical Society, 2005.
http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/184.html.
Discussion
Based on the above analyses, NoodleBib and EasyBib emerged as the top citation
generators. Not only did NoodleBib and EasyBib support the latest editions of MLA,
APA and Chicago styles, these tools also performed more accurately compared to other
free programs, with NoodleBib ranking slightly higher than EasyBib. The greater
accuracy of these two programs was attributed to the online help tips provided. For
instance, NoodleBib provided rather extensive step-by-step, field-by-field help to instruct
the users on the various citation rules and conventions as required by the appropriate
citation style. The NoodleBib data entry screen, shown below, contained the following
instructions on how to format an online retrieval statement for a citation in Chicago style:
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
NoodleBib
EasyBib
Electronic
Print
lOEX-2011 65-cite it right: critical assessment oF oPen source...-
Chicago, 2008. ProQuest (AAT 3300426).
(6) Isaacson, Melissa. Encyclopedia of Chicago. Edited
by Janice L. Reiff, Ann D. Keating, and James R. Grossman.
Chicago: Chicago Historical Society, 2005. http://www.
encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/184.html
Compared to the citation given in The Chicago Manual of
Style:
Isaacson, Melissa. “Bulls.” In Encyclopedia of
Chicago, edited by Janice L. Reiff, Ann D. Keating, and James
R. Grossman. Chicago Historical Society, 2005. http://www.
encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/184.html.
discussion
Based on the above analyses, NoodleBib and EasyBib
emerged as the top citation generators. Not only did NoodleBib
and EasyBib support the latest editions of MLA, APA and
Chicago styles, these tools also performed more accurately
compared to other free programs, with NoodleBib ranking
slightly higher than EasyBib. The greater accuracy of these two
programs was attributed to the online help tips provided. For
instance, NoodleBib provided rather extensive step-by-step,
eld-by-eld help to instruct the users on the various citation
rules and conventions as required by the appropriate citation
style. The NoodleBib data entry screen, shown below, contained
the following instructions on how to format an online retrieval
statement for a citation in Chicago style:
11
Another example that illustrates helpful instructions is the MLA rules for
publisher abbreviations provided in NoodleBib. This help screen, shown below, would be
helpful to users who are unfamiliar with the style requirement:
EasyBib also provided a similar help screen:
Conclusion
Open source web-based citation generators have emerged in recent years as
alternatives to subscription-based bibliographic management software packages like
EndNote and RefWorks. This study examined the accuracy of eight citation generators.
Based on the accuracy of the bibliographies they produced, NoodleBib and EasyBib
66 lOEX-2011 -chang-
Another example that illustrates helpful instructions
is the MLA rules for publisher abbreviations provided in
NoodleBib. This help screen, shown below, would be helpful to
users who are unfamiliar with the style requirement:
EasyBib also provided a similar help screen:
conclusion
Open source web-based citation generators have
emerged in recent years as alternatives to subscription-based
bibliographic management software packages like EndNote
and RefWorks. This study examined the accuracy of eight
citation generators. Based on the accuracy of the bibliographies
they produced, NoodleBib and EasyBib proved to be the most
reliable citation generators out of those studied. However, even
the best free programs are not completely without errors and
limitations. Some ‘free’ programs, such as EasyBib, allow the
users to do certain tasks free of charge but require payment
for other functions. If librarians recommend these tools to
students, they should also provide guidance to students in
regard to these programs. Instruction on how to use these
programs would increase the accuracy of citations generated
by students. Furthermore, as Kessler and Van Ullen (2005)
point out, instruction on citation generators by librarians
not only should include a sense of the limitations of these
programs, but should specify that “the ultimate responsibility
of accurate citations rests with the users” (p. 316). Even with
high accuracy programs like NoodleBib and EasyBib, the need
for students to consult the appropriate style manual cannot be
stressed enough.
reFerences
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication
manual of the american psychological association
(6
th
ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Jennings, A. F. (July, 2003). RefWorks and EasyBib.com: A
comparison of the basic features of two electronic
citation formatting products. Charleston Advisor, 5(1),
18-21.
Kessler, J. (2007). SourceAid Citation Builder Pro PE.
Charleston Advisor, 8(4), 44-46.
Kessler, J. and Van Ullen, M. K. (2005). Citation generators:
Generating bibliographies for the next generation. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(4), 310-316.
Modern Language Association. (2009). MLA handbook for
writers of research papers (7
th
ed.). New York, NY:
MLA.
University of Chicago Press. (2010). The chicago manual of
style (16
th
ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
11
Another example that illustrates helpful instructions is the MLA rules for
publisher abbreviations provided in NoodleBib. This help screen, shown below, would be
helpful to users who are unfamiliar with the style requirement:
EasyBib also provided a similar help screen:
Conclusion
Open source web-based citation generators have emerged in recent years as
alternatives to subscription-based bibliographic management software packages like
EndNote and RefWorks. This study examined the accuracy of eight citation generators.
Based on the accuracy of the bibliographies they produced, NoodleBib and EasyBib
11
Another example that illustrates helpful instructions is the MLA rules for
publisher abbreviations provided in NoodleBib. This help screen, shown below, would be
helpful to users who are unfamiliar with the style requirement:
EasyBib also provided a similar help screen:
Conclusion
Open source web-based citation generators have emerged in recent years as
alternatives to subscription-based bibliographic management software packages like
EndNote and RefWorks. This study examined the accuracy of eight citation generators.
Based on the accuracy of the bibliographies they produced, NoodleBib and EasyBib