Referencing: Principles, Practice - and Problems

Scien fic Tool Referencing: Principles, Practice and Problems Colin Neville University of Bradford, Bradford, UK ABSTRACT This paper explores a neglected aspect of academic writing, namely the principles and practice of referencing sources. In recent years, plagiarism has been a dominant concern for higher education practitioners. However, there can be a fine line between plagiarism and poor referencing practice, and higher education institutions report that students often struggle to understand, not just the ‘how’, but the ‘when’ and ‘why’ aspects of referencing. This paper will, however, assert that student difficulties can stem from the inconsistencies of institutional advice, proliferation of referencing styles, and an over-emphasis by institutions on the technical presentation of sources, rather than on the principles underpinning referencing. The author will argue that academic writers, particularly students, should be encouraged by institutions to perceive referencing primarily as a tool for the development of an authentic authorial voice, rather than just as a defensive shield against accusations of plagiarism. Keywords: Referencing, citations, bibliographies, avoiding plagiarism, academic writing. INTRODUCTION Referencing is the practice of acknowledging in an academic text the intellectual work of others; work that has been presented formally into the public domain and is still accessible in some way. The term ‘citation’ refers to the presentation of a source in the body of the text; and the ‘references’ or ‘bibliography’ refers to the full list of presented sources at the end of the work. It is expected that academic writers will cite and fully reference the sources of ideas, data and other evidence in written assignments. However, this practice is not without its difficulties for academic writers, particularly students. Recent studies1,2 have highlighted the difficulties students can have in understanding the principles and practice of referencing, including understanding when it is necessary to reference and how to cite and reference sources in a way that avoids plagiarism. Pittam et al.3 has highlighted the difficulties students can experience in developing a sense of authorship in academic writing, RGUHS J Pharm Sci | Vol 2 | Issue 2 | xxxx–xxxx, 2012 and Neville4 has also identified a number of particular technical concerns for students, including the confusion caused by the proliferation of referencing styles found within higher education. For academic practitioners, a particular area of concern has been in relation to the number of inaccessible or ‘disappeared’ sites cited in peer reviewed journals, leading to a loss of credibility for the academics in question; this will be explored later in this paper. Like many familiar practices, referencing can be taken for granted by academics experienced in writing for professional purposes. Familiarity with the method can lead to a situation where the principles that underpin practice are no longer reviewed, challenged, or even considered. The experienced academic writer can also fail to appreciate why others less experienced struggle to master a practice that may seem commonplace to the writer concerned. The aim of this paper is to review the principles that underpin the practice of referencing and the problems that can Received Date : 30-03-2012 Revised Date : 30-04-2012 Accepted Date : 02-05-2012 DOI: XXX-XXX-XXXX Address for correspondence Colin Neville Trans:it Project-Science (Resource Development) University of Bradford School of Lifelong Education and Development University of Bradford Bradford BD7 1DP, UK E-mail: [email protected] www.rjps.in 1 Colin Neville: Referencing: Principles, Practice and Problems occur, particularly for students. It will address the ‘why’, ‘what’ ‘where’, ‘when’, and ‘how’ of referencing. It will also engage with the thorny issues of what constitutes common knowledge – which does not need referencing– and about the proliferation of referencing styles and the confusion this can cause to students. A key point in the paper will be that referencing difficulties of students, particularly those studying outside their home countries, are often inseparable from other the writing difficulties, and these arise largely from a lack of previous experience and knowledge of what is expected of them. One desired outcome from this paper is that institutions of higher education allocate time in staff development sessions to reviewing the way referencing is perceived, presented, and assessed. Why reference? So what is the point of referencing? It can be argued that the main purpose is to facilitate the collective development and transmission of academic knowledge. This development and transmission is powered by human endeavour and communication; referencing is one element in this communication process, and can allow writers to separate their ideas from the work of others. It also helps other scholars trace the origins of ideas, thus build links across knowledge. Secondly, all academic writers, whether students or practitioners, are expected to become more critical of ideas as they progress in their careers. This critical approach includes the intelligent selection, review, analysis and presentation of ideas in support of a chosen argument. Referencing is a practical manifestation of this engagement with knowledge and crucial in the development of authorial identity, particularly in the analysis, review and construction of arguments. In this respect, Becker5 believes the construction of arguments is the predominant function of referencing. In Becker’s view, referencing facilitates the communication of evidence to support a particular case, or to assess, compare, contrast or evaluate different sources. Shahabudin,6 summarising work done by the ‘Critical Thinking’ learning area of the Learn Higher Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) network, also suggests that mastery of the principles and practice of referencing is an important element for academic writers in the development of critical thinking. Shahabudin6 sees referencing as a way to gain authority and authenticity in academic writing if it is used to help to trace the origins of ideas, synthesize multiple voices in any discussion, and build a web of connecting ideas. Thirdly, it can be argued that the standardisation of referencing practice, in compliance with a particular referencing style, supports this communication process. 2 The accurate citation and referencing of sources, and in a consistent way, advances a writer’s credibility with his or her peers, and facilitates others to identify the type of source, originator, publisher, and the date of its origin. This serves to comply with copyright agreements, acknowledges the authors or originators of the work in question, and assists other academic writers with their own research. Despite the potentially broad role of referencing in academic writing, Angelil-Carter7 found that undergraduate students in her South African study perceived its function largely in terms of satisfying institutional guidelines, and quotes one student as viewing referencing as a ‘damn nuisance’7 (p. 64), rather than as an aid to the development of arguments. Angelil-Carter7 cites other examples where referencing is seen as a strategy for merely displaying reading coverage or for mimicking the conventions of academic writing, rather than a means for students to develop their ‘own voices’ in assignments.7 (p. 61) Neville8 too, has argued that the ‘moral panic’ around concerns of plagiarism in UK higher education has produced a situation where undue emphasis is placed by institutions on the ‘when’ and ‘how’ aspects of referencing, rather than on the principles underpinning referencing, particularly the development of authorial identity in academic writing. Discussion about academic integrity in general, and plagiarism in particular, has gained momentum in higher education over the last two decades, leading to policies and statements emanating from within institutions warning students of the dire consequences of plagiarism to their academic careers. However, Levin9 and Neville8 feel that these warnings have made academic writers, particularly students, anxious about expressing their own views in assignments. Both commentators8,9 argue that concerns about plagiarism can lead some students to adopt defensive forms of writing. This is where the identity or personality of the writer is submerged by the weight of citation and referencing in the text, including the referencing of texts included merely for ‘show’ purposes, but clearly not read by the students in question. This defensive form of referencing highlights a tension many academic writers appear to feel between developing their own ideas, demonstrating their commitment to the set reading, and avoiding accusations of plagiarism. Abasi et al.2 for example, in their study of graduate students, found that: “The students relied heavily on citation and referencing to represent themselves as writers who had consulted their sources.”2 (p. 10) They quoted a student who said: “You don’t want to write or read a paper that is full of citations, but you have to when you are a student”.2(p. 110) Neville, in his study of students’ perceptions of referencing, found students who described the process RGUHS J Pharm Sci | Vol 2 | Issue 2 | xxxx–xxxx, 2012 Colin Neville: Referencing: Principles, Practice and Problems of academic writing as akin to editing, rather than authorship. He quotes two postgraduate students:8 (p. 28) The person is not able to bring out his own thoughts, in the fear that this idea has already been quoted by previous authors. As this process of fear grows higher, the interest to research and innovate is lost… as the reader analyses further almost every idea that [he] thinks is already quoted by another…I am not against referencing, but with the degree to which it is over-emphasized, I fear it will defeat the objective of education – to train the minds to think It is considered that if there are a lot of references [in the assignment] then the person has done more research, which is not necessarily true. I think an assignment must be more of your own work, and not an entire literature review. Your own ideas and words must be valued… This tension can lead to students writing in a way that buries their writing style identity behind a crustacean layer of referencing to the point where, as one experienced higher education tutor has suggested: “Any rhythm that the resulting prose might have possessed had been destroyed through being referenced to death.”10 (p. 54) However, there have been interesting workshop approaches within higher education institutions to encourage students to develop their own authorial identities and to use referencing as a tool for this purpose. The University of Aberdeen, for example, has embedded academic writing workshops within its Science Masters programmes. These workshops address questions, such as, ‘What is a piece of academic writing?’; ‘What is an argument?’ Feedback from students and staff has been positive, with all commenting favourably on the increased understanding and application of the conventions of academic writing.11 At London Metropolitan University and Liverpool Hope University, Writing Centres were established, and peer mentoring schemes introduced, enabling successful post-graduate students to mentor new undergraduate and postgraduates in academic writing generally, or for a particular discipline.12 The use of plagiarism detection software, such as Turnitin and Ferret, can also be used, not just to deter plagiarism, but in formative way to assist in the development of academic writing. Barratt and Malcolm,13 for example, report on a study involving 182 mainly postgraduate International Masters students on Computer Science, Automotive Engineering and Electronics courses. The students were asked to summarise a number of research papers in an essay, and their assignments were submitted to Turnitin and Ferret, with a view to giving feedback on how original their words appeared to be. A threshold of 15 percent of matching text was used, but it was found RGUHS J Pharm Sci | Vol 2 | Issue 2 | xxxx–xxxx, 2012 that 41 percent of students had submitted work that exceeded this threshold, although on closer inspection a number of these, for a variety of reasons, could not be regarded as plagiarism. However, over a quarter (26 percent) of assignments was above the threshold, and these students were shown their work with the copied passages highlighted and given an opportunity to resubmit it. On resubmission, the incidence of plagiarism had dropped to 3 percent overall. Pankhurst and Moore14 found that Turnitin, if used in a formative way, was a ‘powerful tool’ in encouraging and helping health science students to paraphrase journal articles. The researchers suggested that plagiarism occurred because students were often ‘not comfortable’ with their own writing ability: “To change or paraphrase was, to them, to risk inaccuracy.”14 (p. 126) This view is supported by Neville who found that some students, particularly those studying outside their home countries, “… could not always think of alternative words or ways of expressing ideas; and some admitted to only half understanding the meanings in some passages, so had resorted to partial copying of the most impenetrable sections of the text.” 4 (p. 32) When and what to reference There is no referencing issue more capable of confusing academic writers than this. In particular, as suggested in the last section, students can experience a tension between expressing their own ideas and citing the work and ideas of others; separating the two can become difficult, and students can become over-cautious or confused, about what should be cited.4,15–17 Higher education tutors in the same disciplines may not agree on when it is necessary to reference sources and, in particular, may disagree on what constitutes common knowledge.7,18 As stated earlier, what is regarded as common knowledge does not need citation or referencing. However, Angélil-Carter7 found inconsistencies among staff at one higher education institution on this issue; common knowledge to one tutor was not to another, even in the same subject area, leading to student confusion and insecurity. So what is common knowledge? One definition is: … information that is presumed to be shared by members of a specific “community” — an institution, a city, a national region, the nation itself … a particular race, ethnic group, religion, academic discipline, professional association, or other such classification.19 Common knowledge, in a referencing context, has two main elements. First, there is knowledge ‘shared’ in the public domain. These are generally undisputed facts circulating freely and publicly in any largely uncensored society. It would also include general and 3 Colin Neville: Referencing: Principles, Practice and Problems factual descriptions of folklore and traditions, although specific author comment on these would be referenced. It also covers commonplace observations or aphorisms; for example, that the dreary days of winter can have a depressing impact on our moods, although if specific evidence was mentioned, this would be cited. It would also cover descriptive historical summaries of past events or periods taken from general reference sources, where most commentators agreed on what happened. However, disagreements among commentators on causal factors of these events would be noted and duly referenced. Second, there is common knowledge within a subject. Every subject has its own set of commonly agreed assumptions, jargon, and symbols into which the scholar becomes drawn and which do not have to be continually explained or referenced. At undergraduate degree level, it is assumed that students starting on many courses where there are particular subject prerequisite, for example, sciences, mathematics, and English literature, will have already have some knowledge of these.19 However, as suggested earlier, not everyone within the same discipline may agree on what is common knowledge and navigation of this arena often requires explicit and early negotiation between students and individual tutors on any course.17 Angélil-Carter7 has also drawn attention to difficulties older students can encounter when they attempt to integrate their own experiences into an assignment. In the social science disciplines, for example, students who have lived through significant periods of history may assume their own perspectives on past events are commonly held by others. They may take the position, therefore, that their own perspectives do not need the support of citation and reference to an ‘expert’. Many tutors would agree with this stance - but not all - and it is this inconsistency of tutor approach to referencing that can contribute to inequalities in the marking and feedback of assignments. Another factor in this discussion of common knowledge is in relation to shared knowledge common to one cultural group, but not others. Students, for example, may present unreferenced material in assignments in the belief that the ideas would be regarded as publicly recognised and undisputed in their culture; but some tutors may not agree - and may criticise the student for not producing ‘evidence’ to support claims made. So when should sources, outside of common knowledge, be cited? Campion20 proposes a set of ‘rules for references’ based on the comments of 300 reviewers of four academic journals. He asserts that referencing is essential in the following situations. Firstly, to acknowledge the source of a finding, theory, definition, technique, instrument, 4 formula, or some other piece of information; secondly, to recognise similar findings, theories, ideas or opinions; thirdly, to recognise contradictory or different findings; and fourthly, to support a point not well-known or not universally accepted by readers. He argues too, that references may also be needed for the following purposes: (1.) to support a conceptual point or assertion; (2.) to justify the use of a method, technique, or instrument (e.g., its reliability, validity, or appropriateness); and (3.) to support the importance or viability of a research topic, research question, or purpose/objective of a study. Drawing on Campion’s work, which was written for an academic practitioner readership, Neville21 additionally proposes a more pragmatic six element framework for students on when to reference sources: 1. To give the reader the source of tables, figures, photos, statistics, and diagrams included in a text. These may be items directly copied or which have been a source of collation for the writer. 2. When describing or discussing a definition, theory, model, or practice associated with a particular writer. This would include the names of authors who coined words to label particular phenomena or situations. 3. To emphasise the wider context of a personal reflection or personal experience, or to add weight to the writer’s own arguments or perspectives. 4. When giving emphasis to a particular idea that has found a measure of agreement and support amongst commentators. 5. To inform the reader of sources of direct quotations or definitions used. 6. When paraphrasing another person’s idea that the writer feels is particularly significant or likely to be a subject of debate. Quality issues The increase in readily available online information has raised quality issues for students and for academic practitioners. For students, an issue of concern regards the validity of sources presented in assignments; and for practitioners, as suggested earlier, an important issue is about errors of citation and referencing found in academic writing, including peer reviewed journals. In relation to validity of sources, Campion20 (p. 166) asserts that preference should be given to original articles that are: “seminal in an area of research; methodologically or conceptually rigorous; and most recent”. Campion had his own discipline, Psychology, in mind and, as regards ‘most recent’, but we can find a division of opinion between subject areas on this point. In science disciplines, RGUHS J Pharm Sci | Vol 2 | Issue 2 | xxxx–xxxx, 2012 Colin Neville: Referencing: Principles, Practice and Problems the ‘most recent’ evidence rule is likely to apply. But even in these disciplines past work can be the foundation for exploring how contemporary ideas have built on earlier ideas, models, and practices. With other disciplines, such as philosophy, English, religious study, law, or accounting, the ‘most recent’ can be less applicable, as more emphasis can be placed on seminal work in these disciplines. Campion also asserts that ‘the following reportage secondary sources are not considered [to offer] strong support’ as evidence in assignments: references to mere statements made in research articles that are not findings; textbooks; professional or trade journals, and similar sources; newspapers and other popular press sources. However, he also notes that, on occasions, even these identified ‘weak’ sources might well offer ‘strong support’, depending on the credibility of the authors and context in which they are used: … the quality of a reference depends on the context within which it is being used. If it is appropriate to the context, then it is a good quality reference (e.g., popular press references may be appropriate to show public awareness of an issue).20 (p. 166) Another area of concern expressed by practitioners in recent years has been in relation to inaccessible or ‘disappeared’ sites that are cited in peer reviewed journals. For example, Crichlow et al.22 found that nine percent of sites cited in medical journals were inaccessible within three months of publication; and, even more dramatically, Aronsky et al.23 found that 12 percent of sites cited in biomedical publications were inaccessible within two days of publication! Other studies have raised concerns about the lack of attention to referencing detail by some researchers. For example, Buchan et al.24 investigated the frequency of citation and quotation errors in 100 papers published in ten ophthalmic journals. Their analysis of 200 references found 35 errors in recording sources and 30 quotation inaccuracies. Similarly, Gosling et al.25 in a study of reference and quotation accuracy in four peer-reviewed Manual Therapy journals, found nearly 36 percent errors in referencing sources and 12 percent of errors in quotations. Harzing26 feels that errors of this type can undermine a field of knowledge: “When practitioners discover that academics fail to do a rigorous job [and] that they resort to carelessly repeating what others have said…they are unlikely to value the academic’s advice.” 26 (p. 145) Harzing26 makes a connection between careless referencing and increasing workloads in higher education: Unfortunately, increasing pressures on professors to publish, combined with increased student/faculty ratios that demand more of professors’ potential research time for teaching, are probably exacerbating this type of ineffective behavior.26 (p. 144) RGUHS J Pharm Sci | Vol 2 | Issue 2 | xxxx–xxxx, 2012 The ‘how’ of referencing: referencing styles The ‘how’, or technical presentation of sources, is governed by the referencing style adopted by either the subject discipline; or by a single institution e.g., UK Coventry University with the name-date (Harvard) as their chosen institutional style; or at the discretion of a department within an institution. Neville4 found 14 referencing styles in operation in UK higher education institutions, each with their own sets of advisory or prescriptive guidelines. Why so many styles? Particular referencing styles can be adopted because of an affiliation to a style guide produced by an organisation representing the interests of a professional group or subject discipline, e.g., American Psychological Association (APA) style with Psychology and related subjects. But other reasons for the adoption of a particular style include gradual change over time; departments imitating departments across institutions; an arbitrary past decision by someone influential in a department; or institutional or departmental decisions in an attempt to standardise practice for students. Also, some referencing styles have benchmark guides that are regularly updated and offer clear and detailed instruction on how to reference a wide range of sources, including electronic, which prove attractive to their adopters, e.g., APA. This can offer security in their very prescription and currency, which other more advisory referencing benchmarks do not offer. For example, the Harvard style is derived from the following: (1.) British Standard Institution (BS) guidelines: 5605: 1990: Recommendations for citing and referencing published material; (2.) BS 1629:1989: Recommendation for references to published materials; (3.) BS 5261-1:2000: Copy preparation and proof correction – part 1: design and layout of documents; (4.) BS ISO-690-3: 2009: Information and documentation – Guidelines for bibliographic references and citations to information resources. These are advisory guidelines only and Neville found that the practitioners within institutions charged with interpreting and communicating the guidelines could be inconsistent in their interpretation of BS recommendations. This led to differences in the way the Harvard style formatting of sources was presented to students, even within the same institution.21 Gibaldi27 has argued too, that referencing styles adopted by institutions and departments can be shaped by the kinds of research and scholarship undertaken. For example, the numerical related styles of referencing are often favoured by visual disciplines, such as art and design and architecture, because they are more subtle, less intrusive and pleasing aesthetically on the page, compared to the relative ‘clutter’ produced by the citation name-date Harvard, APA or Modern Languages Association (MLA) styles. 5 Colin Neville: Referencing: Principles, Practice and Problems Neville8 found students critical of the number of referencing styles within UK higher educations. He quotes one undergraduate science student: I wish there weren’t so many styles of referencing and [there was] one standard referencing style for all courses.8 (p. 17) Students on some combined studies courses might be faced with two or more referencing studies to learn and manage within the same semester and Neville also found students critical of the inconsistencies among teaching staff on the advice being offered to students about referencing detail. This was particularly true of the Harvard style for the reasons stated earlier in this paper. Within the medical and pharmaceutical disciplines two referencing styles tend to be predominant: the ‘Harvard style’ and a recurrent-number style, commonly referred to as the ‘Vancouver’ style, as outlined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), in their guide International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Sample References. The Vancouver referencing style uses either a bracketed or superscript number in the text, which connects with list of references at the end of the work. The same number can be repeated, for example, if a source is mentioned more than once in the same text. A number in the text will, therefore, connect with the same number in the final list of references. The advantage of this referencing style generally is that only one number is used per source or note, so the same number can be used for recurring references to the same source (Table 1). The basic idea of the Harvard style is to use citations (a partial reference) in the main body of a text by citing the family name of the author(s), or organisational name, and the year of publication; and then to list all references in full and in alphabetical order at the end of a work. The name used in the citation always connects with the name used to start the full reference entry. The Harvard referencing style is the one most familiar to writers from the style adopted by many academic books and journals and there is no distraction from the text Table 1: Summary of major differences between Harvard and Vancouver referencing styles Name-Date (Harvard) Style This style involves giving (or citing) the name(s) of author(s) or organisation(s) in the text along with the year of publication. All sources are listed alphabetically at the end of an assignment and labelled as ‘References’. 6 Vancouver Style This style uses bracketed (or superscript) numbers in the text that connect with a list of references at the end of the chapter/ assignment. The same number can recur, e.g., if a source is mentioned more than once in the text. to look at footnotes or endnotes, as is the case with concurrent referencing styles (Table 1). The Harvard style is, however, less versatile when citing and referencing sources without authors, and complex when citing secondary sources, and Neville’s survey of the referencing difficulties of undergraduate and postgraduate home and international students4 found the difficulties of secondary referencing high on the list of concerns of both cohorts (Table 2). Formatting As seen in Table 2, the time it takes to format sources correctly and in accordance to the referencing style in question is a recurring concern of students.4,8 And, as shown in the examples in Tables 3 and 4, there are often small differences between styles. It can be seen in Tables 3 and 4 that the differences between Harvard and Vancouver styles in the example shown are in relation to the order and punctuation Table 2: Main referencing concerns of students in the UK Home Students (all) 1. Secondary referencing 2. How to integrate own ideas and experiences into assignments 3. Paraphrasing and summarising 4. How to format and organise bibliographic lists 5. Plagiarism concerns International Students (all) 1. Paraphrasing and summarising 2. How to integrate own ideas and experiences into assignments 3. Secondary referencing 4. Plagiarism concerns 5. Referencing the spoken word Table 3: Book chapter: comparison of Harvard and Vancouver referencing styles Harvard Vancouver Ballinger, A., Clark, M. (2001). Nutrition, appetite control and disease. Ch. 13 in J. PayneJames, G. Grimble, and D. Silk (eds). Artificial nutrition support in clinical practice. 2nd edn. London: Greenwich Medical, pp.225–39. Ballinger A, Clark M. Nutrition, appetite control and disease. In: Payne-James J, Grimble G, Silk D, (eds). Artificial nutrition support in clinical practice. 2nd ed. London: Greenwich Medical; 2001. p. 225–39. Table 4: Journal article: comparison of Harvard and Vancouver referencing styles Harvard Vancouver Powell, C.E. and Slater, I.H. (1958). Blocking of inhibitory adrenergic receptors by a dichloro-analogue of isopreoterenol. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 122: 480–488. Powell CE, Slater IH. Blocking of inhibitory adrenergic receptors by a dichloroanalogue of isopreoterenol. J Pharma Exp Ther. 1958;122:480–88. RGUHS J Pharm Sci | Vol 2 | Issue 2 | xxxx–xxxx, 2012 Colin Neville: Referencing: Principles, Practice and Problems of items. However, as stated earlier, the standardisation and consistency element of referencing is an important element in the communication process with other researchers and in the establishment of credibility for any academic writer. Bibliographic software As the formatting of references is a tedious and timeconsuming process, academic writers, including students, are increasingly using bibliographic software to help them manage the formatting of sources. In addition to the referencing management system built into more recent additions of MS Word, there is now a wide range of referencing management software systems, including free download software, for example, Zotero,28 designed to help writers manage referencing. Many universities provide their adopted software free for students to use within the institution, or enable students to purchase the software themselves, often at a discounted price. Features of this software include: 1. Searching the Internet for references and importing to a database. 2. ‘Cite while you write’ features, which includes organising information retrieved into a particular referencing style. 3. Linking text citation with the full reference, along with a facility for ensuring that any citation featured in the text corresponds with a full reference entry. 4. Editing features: easy addition to references already entered. 5. Keyword sorting alphabetically of references. There are obvious time and efficiency advantages for students in using this software, in both information retrieval and in organising the citation and full referencing in any text. However, all software does have its limitations, and, arguably, no one system can offer completely all that scholars need for fully integrated information search and easy transfer of information into citation and full reference forms. With some systems, for example, the search facility may be limited; with others there may be particular problems, such as confusion in distinguishing between primary and secondary authors, or problems with referencing certain types of uncommon source.29 The cost of these systems is also a factor, as site licences can be expensive and this is a major determinant of which system an institution finally adopts. As already stated, there is free download software that can be used, and most higher education institutions allow students to use their adopted systems free when they are on site. However, the same institutionally-adopted software can be expensive for a scholar to purchase and use privately, RGUHS J Pharm Sci | Vol 2 | Issue 2 | xxxx–xxxx, 2012 even at a discounted price, and academic writers must decide if the cost is justified in terms of the use they will make of it. It also takes time, effort and practice before the software can be used proficiently. However, the available evidence suggests that the effort to learn can be repaid by the consistent and detailed referencing entry that is given.30–32 CONCLUSION Referencing, whilst an important element in academic writing, is a neglected area of research, although concerns about plagiarism, and interest in helping students develop a sense of their authorship in academic writing, has brought the topic to the forefront in recent years. Students can find referencing difficult and confusing, and this can add to the difficulties they may be experiencing in writing in a way that conforms to institutional expectations. Institutions of higher education may compound these difficulties by failing to address and resolve the difficulties students experience, or by not regulating the number of referencing styles across departments. Providing opportunities for teaching staff and administrators to discuss referencing practice and principles could prove to be useful to staff and students alike. Discussion, leading to the formulation of institutional policies and guidelines, could include key but neglected issues relating to the principles underpinning referencing, including: ‘why’ and ‘when’ to reference; what constitutes common knowledge in any discipline; how will referencing be presented to students, including when should this happen, and who will be involved; what advice is offered to students on the selection of sources, particularly those from the Internet; and, importantly, the rationale for the adoption of a particular referencing style or styles within a faculty or institution. REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Pecorari D. Academic Writing and Plagiarism: a Linguistic Analysis. London: Continuum, 2008. Abasi Ali R, Akbari N, Graves B. Discourse appropriation, construction of identities, and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school. J Second Lang Writ 2006;15:102–117. Pittam G, Elander J, Lusher et al. Student beliefs and attitudes about authorial identity in academic writing. Stud High Educ 2009;34:153–170. Neville C. International students writing and referencing. Univ Bradford Learner Dev Unit. Paper: International Students, Writing and Referencing Symposium, Univ Bradford 9 June 2010. Becker HS. Writing for social scientists. Chicago: Univ Chicago Press, 1986. Shahabudin K. Reaping the fruits of collaboration - learning development research in the LearnHigher CETL network. J Learn Dev High Educ 2009; http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/ojs/index.php?journal=jldhe&page=issu e&op=view&path%5B%5D=8. Accessed 29 Apr 2012. Angélil-Carter S. Stolen language? Plagiarism in writing. Harlow: Pearson education, 2000. Neville C. Student perceptions of referencing: a research report. Referencing and Writing Symposium, University of Bradford, 8 June 2009. http://learnhigher.ac.uk/resources/files/Referencing/Research%20 report.doc. Accessed 29 Apr 2012. 7 Colin Neville: Referencing: Principles, Practice and Problems 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 8 Levin P. Beat the witch-hunt! Peter Levin’s guide to avoiding and rebutting accusations of plagiarism, for conscientious students, 2004. Student-Friendly Guides. http://student-friendly-guides.com/plagiarism/ beat-the-witch-hunt. Accessed 14 Feb. 2012. Sanders J. Horray for Harvard? –reverential referencing and the fetish of footnotes. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning 2010;12:48–59. Pryor M. The Aberdeen route to avoiding plagiarism. In: Morris E, editor. Supporting Academic Integrity: Approaches and resources for higher education.York: The Higher Education Academy JISC Academic Integrity Service 2010;46–47. Harrington K, O’Neill P, Bakhshi S. Writing mentors and the Writing Centre: producing integrated disciplinary writers. Invest Univ Teach Learn 2007;4:26–33. Barrett R, Malcolm J. Embedding plagiarism in the assessment process. Int J Educ Integ 2006;2. http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/journals/index. php/IJEI. Accessed 24 Mar. 2012. Pankhurst C, Moore E. Nipping plagiarism in the bud: using Turnition to teach novice science writers how to paraphrase. Eur Med Writ Assn J: The Write Stuff, 2006;15:125–128. Lensmire TJ, Beals DE. Appropriating others’ words: traces of literature and peer culture in a third-grader’s writing. Lang Soc 1994;23:411–425. Pennycook A. Borrowing others’ words: text, ownership, memory and plagiarism. TESOL Quart 1996;30:210–223. Thompson C. Authority is everything: A study of the politics of textual ownership and knowledge in the formation of student writer identities. Int J Educ Integ 2005;1:1–12. Cronin B. Agreement and divergence on referencing practice. J Inf Sci 1981;3:27–34. Hopkins JD. Common knowledge in academic writing. Guidance to students, Univ Tampere, 2005. Campion M. Rules for references: suggested guidelines for choosing literary citations for research articles in applied psychology. Pers Psychol 1997;50:165–168. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Neville C. The complete guide to referencing and avoiding plagiarism. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2007. Crichlow R, Davies S, Wimbush N. Accessibility and accuracy of web page references in 5 major medical journals. J Am Med Assoc 2004;292:2723–2724. Aronsky D, Madani S, Carnevale DS, Feyder MT. The prevalence and inaccessibility of internet references in the biomedical literature at the time of publication. J Am Inform Assoc 2007;14:232–234. Buchan JC, Norris J, Kuper H. Accuracy of referencing in the ophthalmic literature. Am J Ophthalmol 2005;140:1146–1148. Gosling C, Cameron M, Gibbons P. Referencing and quotation accuracy in four manual therapy journals. Manual Ther 2004;9:36–40. Harzing AW. Are our referencing errors undermining our scholarship and credibility? The case of expatriate failure rates. J Organ Behav 2002;23:127–148. Gibaldi J. The MLA Handbook for Writers. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 2003. Mueen Ahmed KK, Al Dhubaid, BE. Zotero: a bibliographic assistant to researcher. J. Pharmacol Pharmacotherap 2011;2:303–305. Shapland M. Evaluation of reference management software on NT (comparing Papyrus with ProCite, Reference Manager, Endnote, Citation, GetARef, Biblioscape, Library Master, Bibliographica, Scribe, Refs). Univ Bristol. Updated Apr. 2001. http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~ccmjs/ rmeval99.htm. Accessed 25 Mar. 2012. Stephens S. RefWorks – a pilot study. UK: Univ Birmingham, Library Services, 2008. McGrath A. RefWorks investigated - an appropriate bibliographic management solution for health students at Kings College London? Lib Info R, 2006;30:66–73. Srikumar BN. Reference style and common errors with referencing. In: Jagadeesh G, Murthy S, Gupta YK, Prakash A, editors. Biomedical research: from ideation to publication. New Delhi: Wolters Kluwer, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2010:479–488. RGUHS J Pharm Sci | Vol 2 | Issue 2 | xxxx–xxxx, 2012