Understanding your results

A clear guide to reading Ref-Check results, understanding what they mean, and deciding what to review next.

Learning Hub

Use your results as a guide, not a judgement

A Ref-Check report is designed to help users review citation and reference-list consistency, formatting issues, DOI and URL details, and sources that may need closer checking.

The results are there to support learning, teaching, academic support, editorial review and professional judgement. They do not mark the work, decide whether a source is suitable, or replace the guidance of a university, journal, publisher or organisation.

Previous: common referencing problems Referencing basics

Read the report in 3 stages

Start with the main overview.
Use Explain my results for a plain-English summary.
Review each issue calmly and check the source details.

A result is a prompt to check something more closely.

What a Ref-Check report shows

Ref-Check looks for patterns in the document that may help users review referencing accuracy. It can highlight where citations and references may not match, where reference formatting may need attention, where DOI or URL details may need checking, and where a source may need closer manual review.

The report should be read as supportive guidance. Some issues may be simple to fix. Others may need judgement, local guidance, or further checking against the required referencing style.

A simple way to read your results

This 3-step pathway helps keep the review process manageable, especially when a report contains several different types of result.

Look at the overview

Start with the main summary. Notice which areas have been highlighted, but avoid trying to fix everything at once.

Use Explain my results

The guided review explains key findings in plain language and helps identify which checks may need attention first.

Check the details

Compare the citation, reference-list entry, DOI, URL or source details with the original source and the required style.

Example: choosing what to check first

Different reports need different kinds of attention. These examples show how a user might read the results calmly and decide what to review first.

Example 1

Several missing reference-list entries

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.

Example 2

Mostly formatting issues

The report shows no missing citations, but several references have possible punctuation, italics or layout issues.

What to notice: the sources may still be traceable, but the presentation may not match the required style.

What to check next: use the selected referencing style or local guidance to tidy the format consistently.

Example 3

Several unverified references

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.

What different results may mean

These sections explain how to respond to common Ref-Check findings without assuming that every highlighted item is automatically wrong.

Citations missing from the reference list

What it may mean

A citation appears in the main text, but Ref-Check has not found a matching entry in the reference list.

What to do next

Check whether the source is in the reference list.
Compare the author name and year carefully.
Check whether the text has been mistaken for a citation.
Add or correct the reference if needed.

Example 1

A clear missing reference

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.

Example 2

A possible spelling difference

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.

Example 3

A possible false match

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.

References listed but not cited

What it may mean

A source appears in the reference list, but Ref-Check has not found a matching citation in the main text.

What to do next

Check whether the source was used in the writing.
Look for small differences in author name or year.
Add a citation if the source was used.
Remove the reference if it was not used and local guidance allows this.

Example 1

A reference that may be unused

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.

Example 2

An abbreviation difference

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.

Example 3

A planning source left in the list

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.

Reference formatting issues

What it may mean

A reference may not closely follow the selected style, or some details may be missing, arranged differently, or formatted inconsistently.

What to do next

Use the selected referencing style as the guide.
Check author order, dates, titles, italics and punctuation.
Use Show me guidance where available.
Apply local university, journal or organisational guidance where required.

Example 1

Missing italics or title formatting

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.

Example 2

Details in the wrong order

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.

Example 3

Missing publication details

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.

DOI and URL issues

What it may mean

A DOI or URL may be missing, incomplete, broken, incorrectly formatted, or may appear to point to a different source.

What to do next

Open the DOI or URL and check where it leads.
Compare the linked source with the reference details.
Check whether the required style expects a DOI, URL or access date.
Correct the link or source details if needed.

Example 1

A missing DOI

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.

Example 2

A DOI that points elsewhere

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.

Example 3

A broken or incomplete URL

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.

Unverified references or sources needing closer review

What it may mean

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.

What to do next

Check the title, author names, year and publication details.
Search for the source through a library catalogue, publisher site or trusted database.
Use manual search where available.
Remember that some valid sources may not appear in scholarly metadata sources.

Example 1

A valid source that is harder to verify

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.

Example 2

A source with small incorrect details

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.

Example 3

A source that may not exist as written

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.

What results do not automatically mean

A highlighted item does not automatically mean that the work is poor, that a source is fabricated, or that academic misconduct has occurred.

Small formatting differences can affect matching.
Some source types are harder to verify automatically.
Local guidance may affect how references should be presented.
Professional judgement is still needed.

What Ref-Check does not do

Ref-Check supports review. It does not replace the role of people, policies or professional judgement.

It does not mark or grade the work.
It does not decide whether a source is academically suitable.
It does not rewrite student work or references.
It does not replace university, journal or publisher guidance.

Before making changes

It is usually best to check the original source, the required referencing style, and any local guidance before editing the reference list. This is especially important for journals, institutional work, professional reports, dissertations or documents with specific style requirements.

Ref-Check makes issues easier to see. The user decides what needs changing, using the evidence, the required style and any relevant guidance.

Where to go next

For more detail about each type of issue, use the common referencing problems guide. For a wider foundation, return to referencing basics or the Learning Hub.

Try Ref-Check Common referencing problems Referencing basics Back to Learning Hub