Learn to interpret Ref-Check findings, use the document review tools, understand citation-formatting guidance and share work for human feedback.
Learning Hub
Ref-Check helps users review citation and reference-list matching, supported in-text citation formatting, DOI and URL details, and sources that may need closer checking.
Its findings support learning, teaching, academic support and editorial review. You can also invite someone to comment using Share for Feedback. Neither the automated checks nor a shared review replaces your university, journal, publisher or organisation's guidance.
A result is a prompt to check something more closely.
Go straight to a topic, or read through the guide one section at a time.
Ref-Check checks the reference trail for possible issues, including unmatched citations, uncited reference-list entries, source metadata that may need verification and selected formatting details in confidently recognised in-text citations. It also presents reference information and style guidance that can help with manual review.
These results are advisory, not a certificate of correctness. Recognition and verification can be limited by a document's structure, available source data and the selected referencing style. An item without a warning may still need checking.
Different reports need different kinds of attention. These examples show how a user might read the results calmly and decide what to review first.
The report shows 6 citations that do not appear to have matching reference-list entries.
What to notice: these findings affect whether a reader can find the full source details.
What to check next: start by comparing each highlighted citation with the reference list, then add or correct entries where needed.
The report shows no missing citations, but several recognised in-text citations have style-specific formatting prompts.
What to notice: the sources may be traceable, even though punctuation or separators could differ from the selected style.
What to check next: read each explanation and compare the citation with the selected style or local guidance.
The report shows several references that could not be confidently matched against available metadata sources.
What to notice: this does not automatically mean the sources are false. Some valid sources are harder to verify.
What to check next: manually check the title, author, year, DOI, publisher or journal details before deciding what to change.
Detailed findings now open in focused panels alongside the document. The separate “Explain my results” guided review is no longer part of the current workflow; its useful explanations are built into the relevant panels.
Working through one category at a time makes larger reports easier to review without treating every finding as an error.
Some findings cannot be located precisely, and some suggestions need additional manual checking.
These sections explain how to respond to common Ref-Check findings without assuming that every highlighted item is automatically wrong.
A citation appears in the main text, but Ref-Check has not found a matching entry in the reference list.
In the text: (Ahmed, 2021)
Reference list: no Ahmed 2021 entry appears.
What to notice: the reader can see that Ahmed has been cited, but cannot find the full source details.
What to check next: add the full Ahmed reference if that source was used.
In the text: (Smyth, 2022)
Reference list: Smith, J. (2022)...
What to notice: the year matches, but the surname spelling is different.
What to check next: check the original source and make the author name consistent in both places.
In the text: The 2022 report showed a change in practice.
What to notice: some text can look citation-like even when it is not intended to be a citation.
What to check next: check the context before adding a reference unnecessarily.
A source appears in the reference list, but Ref-Check has not found a matching citation in the main text.
Reference list: Smith, J. (2022)...
In the text: no Smith 2022 citation appears.
What to notice: the source is listed, but the reader cannot see where it supports the writing.
What to check next: add a citation if the source was used, or remove it if it was not used.
In the text: (DHSC, 2023)
Reference list: Department of Health and Social Care (2023)...
What to notice: abbreviations and full organisation names may not always match automatically.
What to check next: make sure the abbreviation is introduced clearly and follows the required style.
Reference list: a source used during early reading, but not used in the final text.
What to notice: reference lists usually include sources actually cited in the work, not everything read during preparation.
What to check next: remove unused sources unless local guidance says otherwise.
For supported, confidently recognised author–date citations, Ref-Check may identify punctuation, spacing, author separators or no-date wording that differs from the selected referencing style.
Scope: The current checks focus primarily on confidently recognised standalone parenthetical author–date citations. They do not check every citation construction or guarantee full compliance with a style.
(Smith 2022)
What to notice: a style requiring a comma between the author and year may expect a different form.
What to check next: consult your selected style; some author–date styles do not require a comma here.
(Smith & Jones, 2022)
What to notice: the required separator between two author names depends on the referencing style and citation context.
What to check next: confirm whether your style expects “&”, “and” or another form.
(Smith, n.d.)
What to notice: styles differ in how an undated source should be expressed.
What to check next: compare the abbreviation or wording with the selected style guide.
These are teaching examples, not universally incorrect citations. Whether an example warrants a warning depends on the selected style and what Ref-Check can recognise.
A reference-list entry may contain incomplete details or look different from what the selected referencing style requires. Use the available reference findings and guidance to decide what to inspect manually.
The examples below explain common referencing conventions. They do not mean Ref-Check automatically detects every issue involving italics, ordering, layout or missing publication details.
Smith, J. (2022) Developing research skills. London: Example Press.
What to notice: some styles expect book titles to be italicised or presented in a particular way.
What to check next: compare the reference with the selected style guidance.
Developing research skills. Smith, J. London: Example Press, 2022.
What to notice: the details may be present, but they may not be in the order expected by the selected style.
What to check next: rearrange the author, year, title and publication details if needed.
Smith, J. (2022) Developing research skills.
What to notice: the author, year and title are present, but the reader may not have enough publication information.
What to check next: check whether the style expects a publisher, journal, volume, issue, pages, DOI or URL.
A DOI or URL may be missing, incomplete, broken, incorrectly formatted, or may appear to point to a different source.
A journal article is listed without a DOI, but a DOI appears to be available for that source.
What to notice: some styles expect a DOI when one exists.
What to check next: confirm the DOI from the publisher page or trusted metadata source before adding it.
The DOI opens, but it leads to an article with a different title, author or year.
What to notice: the DOI may have been copied incorrectly or may belong to a different source.
What to check next: compare the DOI destination with the reference details and correct whichever is wrong.
The URL does not open, or it opens a general homepage rather than the specific report or webpage.
What to notice: a reader may not be able to find the exact source used.
What to check next: replace it with a complete working link and add an access date if the style requires one.
Ref-Check could not confidently match the reference against the metadata sources checked at that time, or the reference contains details that need closer review.
A local policy document, placement handbook, professional guidance page or internal report may not appear in scholarly metadata sources.
What to notice: unverified does not automatically mean false.
What to check next: use the organisation website, library catalogue, policy page or local guidance to confirm the source.
The title is nearly right, but the year, author order or journal name is slightly different from the published source.
What to notice: small errors can prevent a confident match.
What to check next: compare the reference against the publisher page or trusted database and correct the details.
The title, journal, year and DOI do not appear to match any source that can be found through normal checks.
What to notice: the reference may need careful manual review before it is trusted.
What to check next: search independently and ask for guidance if the source cannot be confirmed.
A highlighted item does not automatically mean that the work is poor, that a source is fabricated, or that academic misconduct has occurred.
Ref-Check supports review. It does not replace the role of people, policies or professional judgement.
Before editing a citation or reference, check the original source, the required referencing style and any local guidance. If a finding is unclear, you can ask a trusted person to review it using Share for Feedback. This is especially useful when working to specific journal, institutional or professional requirements.
Ref-Check makes issues easier to see. The user decides what needs changing, using the evidence, the required style and any relevant guidance.
The Foundations of Referencing series offers short, plain-language videos that explain the key ideas behind referencing, source details, DOIs, URLs, formatting and reference-list checks.
For common problems, visit the referencing guide. For practical instructions on sharing work and reviewing invitations, see the User Guide. You can also revisit referencing basics or return to the Learning Hub.