CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: citation

  • What Is Plagiarism? Definition, Types and How to Avoid It

    Plagiarism is the act of presenting someone else’s words, ideas, data or creative work as your own without proper attribution. It is a breach of research integrity because it misrepresents who is responsible for a contribution and removes the credit owed to the original author. Plagiarism can be deliberate or careless; both are taken seriously in scholarship.

    The defining feature is the missing or inadequate acknowledgement. Using another person’s work is normal and necessary in research; doing so without crediting them is what makes it plagiarism. The remedy is therefore straightforward in principle: accurate, complete citation.

    Why plagiarism breaches research integrity

    Research is cumulative. Each contribution is supposed to declare what it owes to prior work so that credit, accountability and verifiability remain intact. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) frames plagiarism as a serious form of publication misconduct precisely because it corrupts the record of who did what. When attribution fails, readers cannot trace a claim to its source, the original author is denied recognition of their authorship contribution, and trust in the literature erodes.

    The main types of plagiarism

    Plagiarism is not a single behaviour. Recognising its forms is the first step to avoiding them.

    Type Description
    Verbatim (direct) plagiarism Copying text word for word without quotation marks or a citation.
    Mosaic / patchwork plagiarism Interweaving copied phrases from one or more sources with your own words, without attribution.
    Paraphrasing without attribution Restating someone’s idea in your own words but omitting the citation, leaving the idea uncredited.
    Self-plagiarism / text recycling Reusing your own previously published work without disclosure (covered in depth separately).
    Contract cheating Submitting work produced by someone else — paid or unpaid — as your own.

    Verbatim and mosaic plagiarism

    Verbatim plagiarism is the most recognisable form: lifting sentences directly. Mosaic plagiarism is subtler and often unintentional — it happens when a writer stitches together fragments of source text with light edits, never quite quoting and never quite citing. Both are detectable and both are misconduct.

    Paraphrasing without attribution

    Changing the wording does not remove the obligation to cite. If the underlying idea, structure or finding came from a source, the source must be credited even when no words are copied. This is one of the most common honest mistakes among new researchers.

    Self-plagiarism and contract cheating

    Reusing one’s own prior text without disclosure — self-plagiarism — can mislead readers about what is new. Contract cheating, where work is outsourced and submitted as one’s own, is among the most serious breaches because it falsifies the entire basis of attribution.

    How proper citation prevents plagiarism

    Most plagiarism is prevented by the same disciplined habits that produce good research outputs:

    • Quote and cite direct text. Place copied wording in quotation marks and add an in-text citation pointing to a full reference entry.
    • Cite paraphrased ideas. Even fully reworded ideas need a citation if the substance came from a source.
    • Keep meticulous notes. Record where every fact, quotation and figure came from as you read, so attribution is never reconstructed from memory.
    • Disclose reuse of your own work. Cite your earlier publications just as you would another author’s.

    The mechanics of doing this well — pairing an in-text marker with a complete reference — are explained in what a citation is and our guide for authors.

    The role of similarity-detection tools

    Text-matching services such as Turnitin and iThenticate compare a submission against large corpora and report overlapping passages as a similarity score. These tools identify matching text; they do not, by themselves, determine intent or whether a match is properly attributed. A high similarity score may reflect correctly quoted and cited material, while genuine plagiarism of ideas can produce a low one. They are an aid to human judgement, not a verdict.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is paraphrasing plagiarism?

    Paraphrasing is not plagiarism when the source is cited. It becomes plagiarism when you restate someone’s idea in your own words but omit the citation, because the idea remains uncredited even though the wording has changed.

    Can you plagiarise your own work?

    Yes. Reusing your own previously published text, data or figures without disclosure is known as self-plagiarism or text recycling. It can mislead readers about what is original, which is why prior work should be cited and reuse disclosed.

    Does a low similarity score mean there is no plagiarism?

    No. Similarity-detection tools flag matching text, not stolen ideas. Plagiarism of concepts or findings can be paraphrased into a low score, while properly quoted and cited passages can raise a score legitimately. The tools support human judgement rather than replace it.

    What body sets standards on plagiarism in publishing?

    The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) provides widely adopted guidance on plagiarism and other forms of publication misconduct for editors and publishers. For standardised definitions of related terms, see the CASRAI dictionary.

  • What Is a Bibliography? Definition, Types and How to Compile

    A bibliography is an organised, alphabetised list of sources relevant to a piece of scholarly work, placed at the end of a document. Depending on the convention in use, a bibliography may list only the sources cited or may also include background works consulted but not directly cited. Its purpose is to record the intellectual context of a work and let readers locate every source behind it.

    The word carries more than one meaning in scholarship. In some citation systems “bibliography” is the standard name for the end-of-document source list; in others it is distinguished sharply from a reference list. Understanding which sense applies is the first step to compiling one correctly.

    Bibliography versus reference list

    The clearest way to grasp a bibliography is to set it against the reference list it is often confused with.

    Feature Reference list Bibliography
    Contents Only sources cited in the text May include cited and uncited background reading
    Mapping to text One-to-one with in-text citations Need not map to every in-text marker
    Typical styles APA, Vancouver (as “References”) Chicago notes-bibliography, MLA (“Works Cited”)

    A reference list answers the question “what did you cite?” A bibliography can answer the broader question “what shaped this work?” The mapping between in-text markers and entries is covered in in-text citations versus the reference list.

    Types of bibliography

    Enumerative bibliography

    The most common form: a straightforward list of sources, alphabetised by author surname, each entry formatted to a chosen style. This is what most students and researchers mean by “a bibliography”.

    Annotated bibliography

    Each entry is followed by a short paragraph — the annotation — that summarises the source, evaluates its relevance or quality, and notes how it relates to the project. Annotated bibliographies are common in literature reviews and proposals, where the reader benefits from the author’s assessment of each source.

    Analytical and descriptive bibliography

    A specialist scholarly field concerned with books as physical objects — their printing, editions and material history. This sense is distinct from the everyday end-of-paper list and belongs to textual scholarship rather than routine citation.

    How to compile a bibliography

    Compiling a reliable bibliography is a disciplined, repeatable process.

    • Record sources as you read. Capture full bibliographic detail — author, year, title, container, publisher and a persistent identifier such as a DOI — at the moment you consult each source, not afterwards from memory.
    • Choose one citation style and apply it consistently. The required elements are stable, but their order and punctuation are not. See citation styles compared to select the right one.
    • Decide cited-only or cited-plus-background. Confirm whether your style and assignment want a reference list or a fuller bibliography, then include sources accordingly.
    • Alphabetise and format. Order entries by the first author’s surname and apply a hanging indent so each entry is easy to scan.
    • Verify every entry. Check that each persistent identifier resolves and that names are disambiguated — an ORCID iD helps distinguish authors with similar names.

    How to order and format entries

    Most enumerative bibliographies are ordered alphabetically by the lead author’s surname. Where an author has several works, they are usually ordered by year. Numeric systems such as Vancouver are an exception: there the list is ordered by the sequence of first appearance in the text, not alphabetically. Each entry typically uses a hanging indent, and titles, journals and books are styled per the chosen system.

    System Ordering principle
    Author–date (APA, Chicago author–date) Alphabetical by surname, then by year
    MLA Works Cited Alphabetical by first listed name or title
    Numeric (Vancouver) By order of citation in the text

    Relationship to works cited and references

    “Works Cited” is MLA’s name for its end-of-paper list and contains only cited sources, making it functionally a reference list rather than a full bibliography. Knowing the vocabulary your discipline uses prevents the common error of mixing background reading into a list that should be cited-only. Sound bibliographies also support research integrity, because a complete, accurate source list lets others verify and build on your work.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is a bibliography the same as a reference list?

    Not always. A reference list contains only the sources you cited. A bibliography may also include background works you read but did not cite. Some styles, however, use “bibliography” as the name for what others call a reference list, so always check your style’s convention.

    What is an annotated bibliography?

    An annotated bibliography adds a short evaluative paragraph after each entry, summarising the source and explaining its relevance. It is common in literature reviews and research proposals where readers benefit from the author’s assessment of each work.

    How do I order a bibliography?

    Most bibliographies are alphabetised by the lead author’s surname, then by year for multiple works by the same author. Numeric systems such as Vancouver are the exception and order entries by their first appearance in the text.

    Where can I find standardised definitions of these terms?

    Consult the CASRAI dictionary for standardised definitions, and our explainer on what a citation is for how individual references fit together.

  • What Is a Citation? Definition, Purpose and Components

    A citation is a standardised reference that identifies a source you have used, quoted, paraphrased or relied upon in a piece of scholarly work. Every complete citation has two halves that work together: a brief in-text marker placed at the point of use, and a full reference entry in a list at the end of the document. Together they let any reader trace a claim back to its origin and locate the exact source consulted.

    Citation is the connective tissue of the scholarly record. It assigns credit, supports verifiability, and links each new contribution to the body of work it builds upon. Without consistent citation, a research claim becomes an assertion that no one can check.

    The two components of a citation

    A working citation is never a single object. It is a pairing:

    • The in-text citation — a compact pointer inside the running text, such as an author–date marker (Smith, 2021) or a numeric marker [4]. It signals that the adjacent statement draws on an external source.
    • The reference entry — the full bibliographic record in the reference list, carrying enough detail (author, year, title, container, publisher or journal, and a persistent identifier) to retrieve the source unambiguously.

    The marker is deliberately short so it does not interrupt reading; the entry is deliberately complete so retrieval never fails. We explore this pairing in depth in in-text citations versus the reference list.

    Anatomy of a reference entry

    Although formatting varies by style, the underlying data elements are stable across the scholarly record:

    Element Purpose
    Author / contributor Assigns credit and supports name disambiguation (often via an ORCID iD)
    Year of publication Places the work in time and signals currency
    Title Identifies the specific work
    Container Journal, book or repository in which the work appears
    Persistent identifier A DOI or Handle that resolves to the source regardless of where it is hosted

    The persistent identifier matters most for durability. A DOI, issued through infrastructure such as Crossref and resolved by the Handle System, points at the work itself rather than a fragile web address, so the citation remains actionable even when a publisher reorganises its site.

    Why citation underpins the scholarly record

    Citation performs several functions at once, and each is essential to how research accumulates.

    Attribution and credit

    A citation acknowledges whose ideas, data or words you are using. Accurate attribution is the practical mechanism by which the authorship contribution of others is recognised, and it is the first defence against plagiarism. Proper citation is precisely what separates legitimate use of a source from plagiarism.

    Verifiability and integrity

    Because a citation lets a reader retrieve the original source, it makes a claim checkable. This verifiability is foundational to research integrity: peer reviewers, replicators and later authors can confirm that a cited source genuinely supports the statement attached to it.

    Discoverability and the citation graph

    Citations connect documents into a navigable network. Following references backwards reveals a work’s intellectual foundations; tracking citations forwards reveals its influence. This citation graph powers literature searches, bibliometric analysis and the everyday act of finding the next relevant paper.

    Citation, reference and bibliography distinguished

    These three terms are frequently confused. They are related but not interchangeable.

    Term What it is
    Citation The complete act of crediting a source — both the in-text marker and its matching entry
    Reference A single full entry in the reference list; a reference list contains only sources actually cited in the text
    Bibliography A broader list that may include background reading consulted but not directly cited

    For a fuller treatment of these lists and how to build them, see our explainer on what a bibliography is and how to compile one.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is a citation the same as a reference?

    No. A reference is the single full entry in your reference list. A citation is the wider act of crediting that source, which includes both the in-text marker and the matching reference entry. Every in-text citation should map to exactly one reference entry, and vice versa.

    What is the difference between a reference list and a bibliography?

    A reference list contains only the sources you actually cited in the text. A bibliography may additionally list works you read for background but did not cite. Some styles use the word “bibliography” for what other styles call a reference list, so always follow your chosen style’s conventions.

    Why do citations include a DOI?

    A DOI is a persistent identifier that resolves to the source even if the hosting URL changes. Including it makes a citation durable and machine-actionable, improving both long-term retrievability and discoverability across the scholarly record.

    Does every citation style format references the same way?

    No. The underlying data elements are stable, but their order, punctuation and emphasis differ by style. Compare the major systems in our guide to citation styles compared, and consult the CASRAI dictionary for standardised term definitions.

  • DOI vs URL: Why Permanent Links Persist and Web Addresses Decay

    A DOI (Digital Object Identifier) is a persistent identifier that resolves to the current location of a resource, whereas a URL is a direct web address that points to one fixed location. The practical difference is durability: when a publisher reorganises a website, a URL can break (“link rot”), but a DOI continues to resolve because it redirects through the Handle System to wherever the content now lives. For scholarly citation, this is why DOIs are preferred over raw URLs.

    How a URL works and why it rots

    A URL (Uniform Resource Locator) describes where something sits on a particular server at a particular path, for example https://example.org/journal/2024/article-37.html. If the publisher migrates platforms, renames directories, or retires a section, that exact path may no longer exist and the link returns a 404 error. This decay is known as link rot; a related problem, content drift, occurs when a URL still resolves but the content behind it has changed. Both undermine the scholarly record because a citation should point readers to the exact source the author used.

    How a DOI works: the Handle System

    A DOI is an identifier of the form 10.xxxx/suffix assigned to a resource by a registration agency such as Crossref or DataCite. The DOI is not a location; it is a name. Resolution happens through the Handle System, a distributed identifier-resolution infrastructure. When you append a DOI to a resolver, for example https://doi.org/10.xxxx/suffix, the resolver looks up the current target URL registered for that DOI and redirects you. If the publisher moves the content and updates the DOI’s registered target, every existing citation keeps working without change. The identifier stays stable while the underlying location is free to move. The same mechanism underpins our wider work on research outputs and metadata.

    DOI vs URL at a glance

    Property DOI URL
    What it identifies The object (a name) A location (a path)
    Persistence High — survives site moves Low — breaks if path changes
    Resolution Handle System redirect Direct request to a server
    Carries metadata Yes (via registration agency) No
    Best for Articles, datasets, formal records Web pages, blogs, sites without a DOI

    How to cite with a DOI

    Most current style guides ask you to present a DOI as a full, clickable link. The widely recommended display form is https://doi.org/10.xxxx/suffix rather than the bare string “doi:10.xxxx/suffix”. Place it at the end of the reference. You do not normally need to add an access date for a source with a DOI, because the identifier is stable; access dates are reserved for sources likely to change. To understand how the DOI fits into the structure of a complete reference, see our guide to what a citation is and its purpose, and the broader explainer on the DOI and Handle System resolution.

    When to use a URL instead

    Not everything has a DOI. Reports, web pages, blog posts, government documents and many grey-literature items are cited with a URL because no persistent identifier was ever assigned. In those cases, give the most stable URL available, add a retrieval date if the content may change, and consider linking to an archived snapshot in a web-archiving service to guard against future link rot. When a DOI is available, always prefer it. Reference managers and a sound bibliography workflow — covered in our piece on how to compile a bibliography — make it easy to capture the DOI automatically. For terminology, our research-standards dictionary defines persistent-identifier concepts precisely.

    Good practice for durable links

    Prefer the DOI when one exists; use the https://doi.org/ resolver form; keep raw URLs only for sources without identifiers; and archive volatile web sources. A reference manager (see our overview of reference management software) will usually pull the DOI from the source metadata, but you should always verify it resolves before you submit.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is a DOI a type of URL?

    No. A DOI is an identifier — a name for an object. It becomes clickable when you prefix it with a resolver such as https://doi.org/, which turns the name into a link that redirects to the object’s current location.

    Why does my old citation’s DOI still work after the journal changed websites?

    Because the DOI resolves through the Handle System to whatever target URL the publisher has registered. When the site moved, the publisher updated that target, so the DOI keeps pointing at the right place even though the underlying URL changed.

    Should I include both the DOI and the URL?

    Generally no — if a DOI exists, cite the DOI and omit the raw URL, because the DOI is the more durable and authoritative link. Use a plain URL only when the source has no DOI.

    Do DOIs guarantee a source will never disappear?

    A DOI guarantees stable resolution as long as the registrant maintains it, but it cannot stop a publisher from withdrawing content. For volatile or unregistered sources, archiving a snapshot remains good practice.

  • Annotated Bibliography: How to Write One (Step-by-Step)

    An annotated bibliography is a list of citations in which each entry is followed by a brief paragraph — the annotation — that describes, evaluates and situates the source. Unlike a plain reference list, it tells the reader not just what you cited but why it matters. A good annotation usually does three jobs: summary (what the source argues), evaluation (how credible or useful it is) and relevance (how it relates to your project).

    What an annotation contains

    Each annotation is typically 100–200 words and follows immediately after a full, correctly formatted citation. Depending on the assignment, annotations may be descriptive (summary only), evaluative (summary plus a judgement of quality), or reflective (how the source informs your own argument). Many tutors ask for all three elements. The citation itself follows whatever style you are using; for the underlying principles, see our explainer on what a citation is.

    How to write an annotated bibliography

    Follow these steps in order.

    1. Define your scope. Decide the topic and the criteria a source must meet to be included — recency, methodology, authority, relevance to your research question.
    2. Find and select sources. Search databases and library catalogues, then choose the works that genuinely advance your argument rather than everything you find.
    3. Record full citations. Capture complete, accurate references in your chosen style as you go. A reference manager makes this much faster.
    4. Read critically. Note the thesis, method, evidence and limitations of each source.
    5. Write the annotation. In a short paragraph, summarise the source, evaluate its strengths and weaknesses, and explain its relevance to your work.
    6. Order the entries. Arrange alphabetically by author (most common), or chronologically or thematically if that suits the project.
    7. Proofread and check. Verify every citation against the source — generated references in particular need checking, as we explain in our guide to citation accuracy.

    Annotation styles compared

    Type Contains Best for
    Descriptive Summary only Surveying a field
    Evaluative Summary + critique Assessing source quality
    Reflective Summary + relevance to your project Planning a dissertation or literature review

    A worked example

    The following illustrates an evaluative annotation. The citation comes first, then the paragraph.

    Smith, J. (2023). Open data practices in clinical research. Journal of Research Standards, 12(2), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/example

    Smith surveys data-sharing policies across forty clinical journals and argues that mandatory deposit improves reproducibility. The study’s strength is its breadth; its limitation is a focus on policy text rather than compliance in practice. The article is directly relevant to my project because it frames the gap between stated and enacted open-data norms that my dissertation investigates.

    Note how the example uses a DOI rather than a plain URL for durability. For the difference between an annotated bibliography and other list types, see our overview of bibliographies and how to compile them, and our hub on research outputs.

    Common pitfalls

    Avoid simply abstracting the source without evaluating it, padding annotations to a word count, or copying the publisher’s blurb. Keep your own analytical voice, and make sure every citation is verified against the original — accurate referencing supports the integrity of the wider scholarly record discussed across our dictionary.

    Frequently asked questions

    How long should each annotation be?

    Most annotations run to one short paragraph of roughly 100–200 words. Always follow your assignment brief, which may specify a length or which elements (summary, evaluation, relevance) are required.

    What is the difference between an annotated bibliography and an abstract?

    An abstract is a neutral, author-written summary of a single work. An annotation is written by you and adds evaluation and a statement of relevance to your own project, so it is critical rather than purely descriptive.

    Do annotations need full citations?

    Yes. Each entry begins with a complete, correctly formatted citation in your chosen style, then the annotation follows. The citation must be accurate and verified, just as in a standard reference list.

    Can I use a reference manager to build one?

    Yes. Tools such as Zotero, Mendeley and EndNote store your sources and generate formatted citations; you then write the annotations beneath each entry. Always check the generated citation against the source.

  • Conference outputs as part of the scholarly record: proceedings, posters and presentations

    For a great deal of research, the conference is where it first meets the world. A finding is presented in a talk, a method shown on a poster, a work-in-progress debated long before it appears in a journal — and in some fields, notably parts of computer science and engineering, the peer-reviewed conference paper is itself a primary, prestigious form of publication. Yet the outputs that conferences generate have an uneasy relationship with the formal scholarly record. A poster rolled back into its tube, a set of slides shared only with the people in the room, a proceedings paper that never receives a stable identifier: these represent real scholarly work that too often slips through the cracks of citation, discovery and recognition. This article looks at how conference outputs can take their proper place in the record, drawing on the research outputs domain of the CASRAI Dictionary.

    The range of conference outputs

    “Conference output” covers several distinct things, and treating them as one blurs important differences:

    • Proceedings papers. Full written papers published as part of a conference’s proceedings, frequently peer-reviewed and, in some disciplines, the main venue for significant work — carrying prestige comparable to or exceeding journal articles.
    • Extended abstracts. Shorter written contributions that summarise work presented at a meeting.
    • Posters. Visual presentations of research, often of preliminary or focused findings, displayed and discussed during a conference.
    • Presentations and slides. The talks given at conferences and the slide decks that accompany them, which capture how work was framed and communicated at a particular moment.

    Each of these is a genuine output reflecting real intellectual contribution. The problem has rarely been their value; it has been their persistence and findability. A journal article is deposited, identified, indexed and citable almost automatically. A poster or a set of slides, historically, was not — and so excellent work could effectively vanish after the event that occasioned it.

    The persistence problem

    The core difficulty is that conference outputs have often lacked the infrastructure that makes other outputs durable. Without a stable home and a persistent identifier, a poster or presentation cannot be reliably cited, because there is nothing stable to cite; it cannot be easily discovered, because it is not indexed; and it cannot be properly credited, because it leaves no fixed trace. The result is a systematic under-recognition of a large category of work, and a loss to the record itself, since conference outputs frequently contain early results or methodological details that never reach a later paper. Solving this requires the same two things that make any output durable: a stable place to live and a persistent identifier to name it.

    Repositories and DOIs for conference outputs

    This is exactly what general-purpose research repositories now provide. Platforms such as Zenodo and Figshare allow researchers to deposit a wide range of outputs — including posters, presentations, slides and proceedings papers — and, crucially, to mint a DOI for each one. The effect is transformative. A poster deposited in Zenodo with a DOI is no longer an ephemeral object that existed for one afternoon; it is a permanently archived, uniquely identified, citable output with its own landing page and metadata. The same applies to a slide deck or an extended abstract. By depositing conference outputs and obtaining persistent identifiers for them, researchers turn fleeting presentations into durable parts of the scholarly record — findable, linkable and citable like any article or dataset. The infrastructure that was once reserved for formal publications is now readily available for the full range of conference work.

    Citing and connecting conference outputs

    Once a conference output has a persistent identifier, it can participate fully in the scholarly graph. It can be cited in later work, so that the poster which first presented an idea, or the proceedings paper that established a method, receives proper credit. It can be linked to related outputs — connected to the dataset it draws on, the eventual journal article it grew into, or the software it demonstrated — so that the relationships between a project’s outputs are visible. And it can be attributed to its creators through their identifiers, so the contribution attaches to the right people. This connectivity matters because research outputs are most valuable when they are linked rather than isolated. A conference output with a DOI is not a dead end; it is a node in the network of scholarship, able to cite and be cited like any other.

    Recognition and assessment

    Making conference outputs persistent and citable also makes them visible to the systems that recognise and assess research. When a poster or presentation has a stable identifier and clear metadata, it can appear in a researcher’s ORCID record, flow into institutional systems, and be counted as part of their contribution — particularly important for early-career researchers, whose conference work may precede their first journal publications, and for disciplines where the peer-reviewed proceedings paper is the principal output. Recognising the full breadth of scholarly work, rather than only the journal article, is a recurring theme of the research outputs domain and of fair approaches to authorship and contribution. Conference outputs deserve to count, and persistent identification is what lets them.

    A consistent vocabulary for conference work

    For conference outputs to be deposited, cited, linked and credited consistently across repositories and research systems, they must be described in a shared way — the type of output, its relationship to an event and to other outputs, and the roles of those who created it. That consistency is what the CASRAI Dictionary provides: a shared vocabulary so that a proceedings paper, a poster or a presentation is understood for what it is wherever it appears. And because each rests on genuine contribution, the work behind it can be described in the same shared framework — the CRediT taxonomy. The conference is where research is so often first shared; giving its outputs persistent identifiers ensures that what is shared there takes its rightful place in the lasting record.