Tag Archives: referencing

What book is that?

By Dr Linda Glassop

@lindaglassop, @comwriter


“…we rarely teach students about the underlying principles of referencing.”

I recently had a student ask me to explain the difference between an authored book and an edited book. This is not a question you expect to hear, but it is a reasonable question for a student to ask. The problem is, there is no forum within which students can actually ask this question!

The reason for the question is related to referencing. The reference for an edited book is very different to an authored book; but first, you need to know what type of book you have. The same goes for many other resource types (e.g., articles). The key problem is that we rarely teach students about the underlying principles of referencing, expecting that they can pick up a Style Guide and miraculously know how to apply it.

Referencing fundamentals

As a consequence, we devised a course ‘Fundamentals of Referencing‘ that, in Part A, explores five resource types: Articles, Books, Journal Material, Internet Material and Notes or Notebooks. For each resource type, we examine a range of issues. For books, we take a look at:

  • What ‘book’ is that?
  • Parts of a book (e.g., front matter, body, back matter)
  • Elements of a book (e.g., contents, acknowledgments, glossary, references)
  • Contributors to books (e.g., editors, authors)
  • Descriptors for books (e.g., titles, short titles, series titles)
  • Identifiers for books (e.g., year published, publisher, and other key publication data)
  • Recording the source (i.e., hard copy, online or database)
  • Keeping notes (e.g., abstract, summary, legal notes)
  • Finding books
  • Top tips for referencing books
  • Examples of referencing books
  • Tools for storing book references

Students can find out all the intricate details about managing reference data for: Articles, Books, Journal Material, Internet Material and Notes or Notebooks, before they launch into applying a Style Guide. Our course is self-paced, and provides a range of interactive elements to keep it interesting. Also, students can self-test after each section to ensure they are retaining the knowledge.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Academic referencing, Improve your writing, Teaching innovations

Misconceptions about academic writing

By Dr Linda Glassop



Writing a paper for a university assignment can be a daunting task. It often appears that University Professors are asking for rather strange things and appear to allocate marks randomly. However, writing for University is not something ‘special’ to catch undergraduates out. Writing at University is first-and-foremost about good communication and involves:

  • creating a logical argument (Does your line of discussion make sense?)
  • ensuring you have conducted research and that it is up-to-date (Does your argument consider what is already known?)
  • setting your argument out in a coherent and readable form (Can I read it?)
  • providing citations to the sources of your research (Are your sources legitimate?)

Common misconceptions include:

  1. If I add colour to my headings, borders, background, and the like, it will ‘look’ awesome
  2. Content is what matters; I have the required wordcount
  3. Citations are something the Professor tries to catch me out on

These misconceptions couldn’t be further from the truth. Color can muddy the appearance and make your paper look jazzy, but it is a distraction from actually reading what you have found out. This is a simpler response that requires minimal effort for students:

  1. Professors want students to develop their writing skills, not their graphic design skills (unless of course you are studying graphic design). Black and White looks crisp, clean and often more professional than color.
  2. Content is important, but it is the logic of the argument that counts. Quality of discussion, not quantity. Cutting and pasting the words of others means you have nothing to say for yourself. Professors are interested in what ideas students can develop, not what others have already written. Also, plagiarism is easy for Professors to detect, so avoid the problem in the first place and develop your own ideas and thoughts.
  3. Referencing is about acknowledging whose ideas you have relied on in order to develop your own ideas. This informs your Professor about the depth of your ideas and whether they are informed (by literature) or naive (assertions).

The formatting for citations and bibliographies can be quite complex and is different for each ‘discipline’ (field of study). This is why Professors use tools like ComWriter to do the reference formatting for them. Professors don’t waste time trying to remember how to do references, they use available tools.

Here is a marking guide that I used to use for first-year Management students undertaking a simple review of the literature. It provides an excellent guide for what University Professors are looking for.


Learning objective
Performance Indicator
(0 point)
Needs Improvement
(1 points)
(2 points)
Well Done
(3 points)
(4 points)
Find information appropriate to the task
(max. 4 points)
·  No journal articles selected or the articles selected are of poor quality (not on listing)
·  Articles are out-of-date.
·  An inadequate range of journal articles (C) selected
·  Some articles are out-of-date (pre 1980)
·  A reasonable range of journal articles ( B, C) selected
·  Articles are up-to-date (2000 and onwards).
·  A good range of quality (A, B) journal articles selected
· Articles are up-to-date.
· A good range of high-quality journal articles (A) selected
·  Articles are up-to-date.
Evaluate and organise information in a logical and coherent way
(max. 4 points)
· Poor Introduction, no background, objectives or conclusions
· Headings not provided and/or inappropriate.
· Information provided does not relate to the task.
· Discussion is disjointed and fragmented.
· Introduction provides  little  information
· Some headings not provided and/or inappropriate.
· Some information provided relates to the task, but is incomplete.
·  Discussion lacks flow and is somewhat disjointed and fragmented.
· Introduction provides  some  information
· Headings and sub-headings are appropriate.
· Information provided relates to the task but is cursory.
·  Discussion flows well, but is disjointed or fragmented in some places.
· A good introduction with background, objectives or conclusions
· Headings and sub-headings are appropriate.
· Information covers the breadth of the task, and shows some depth.
· Discussion has a logical flow, but is a little fragmented.
·  Excellent Introduction, clear background, objectives or conclusions
· Headings and sub-headings are appropriate.
· Information clearly covers the breadth and depth of the task.
· Discussion has a logical flow and coherent line of argument.
Critically analyse and synthesise the  information gathered
(max. 4 points)
· The essay is mostly descriptive.
· No constructive analysis of the information.
· No conclusions draw.
· No recommendations made.
· Some attempt to provide a balanced discussion has been provided.
·  No constructive analysis of the information.
· A summary rather than conclusions is provided.
· No recommendations provided.
· A balanced discussion has been provided.
· The constructive analysis is cursory.
· The conclusions drawn have a relationship with the information presented.
· Some recommendations made but they are inadequate.
· A balanced discussion has been provided.
· A constructive analysis is present but lacks depth.
· The conclusions drawn have a clear relationship with the information presented.
· Recommendations are adequate and show some knowledge about the subject matter.
· A balanced discussion has been provided.
· The constructive analysis shows depth of knowledge and insight.
· The conclusions have a clear relationship with the information presented.
· Recommendations show depth of knowledge about the subject matter.
Communicate information accurately
(max. 4 points)
· Extensive spelling and/or grammatical errors.
· References do not use the Harvard method correctly.
· In-text citations not utilised or inaccurate.
· Paraphrasing closely resembles a quote.
· Too much quoted material provided and presented incorrectly.
· Some spelling and/or grammatical errors.
· An attempt to use the Harvard method has been made, but not entirely correct.
· In-text citations are mostly inaccurate.
· Paraphrasing uses too much of the authors own words.
· Too much quoted material provided, and some presented incorrectly.
· Few spelling and/or grammatical errors.
· References provided under the Harvard method are accurate in most cases.
· In-text citations are accurate in most cases.
· Paraphrasing correctly portrays another’s ideas in student’s own words.
· Too much quoted material used, but presented correctly.
· No spelling and/or grammatical errors.
· References provided under the Harvard method are accurate.
· In-text citations are accurate.
· Paraphrasing correctly portrays another’s ideas in student’s own words.
· Fewer quotations could be used, but presented correctly.
· No spelling and/or grammatical errors.
· References provided under the Harvard method are accurate.
· In-text citations are accurate.
· Paraphrasing correctly portrays another’s ideas in student’s own words.
· Quotations used sparingly and presented correctly.


Posted: January 28, 2016

Leave a Comment

Filed under ComWriter features, Improve your writing

The Inadequacy of Word Processors for Academic Writing

There are more than 130 million students and faculty in Higher Education worldwide. Every one of these individuals needs to write academic papers and articles. However, the tools we have for academic writing are extremely limited (see Table 1):

  • Microsoft Word is, primarily, desktop with a wide range of features making it difficult to learn and demands too much time to manage the formatting, and also causes version control issues
  • Google docs is a cloud-based product with excellent collaboration features, but is limited for most academic work
  • Scrivener is a Mac product that has some nice note features, but has a very confusing user interface
  • Authorea is a relatively new cloud-based word processor, but it is a latex product that requires knowledge of this technical language

The top 5 limitations are:

1. Reference data must be interfaced with a third-party tool (e.g., Mendeley, Endnote, Zotero)

Integrating third party tools to manage reference data often causes issues, and the limitations of these tools is also problematic. Google docs enables footnote citing with Google Scholar and web searches, but its inability to produce in-text citations renders it useless for most undergraduate writing.

2. Formatting often takes up more time than writing (i.e., it is difficult to get consistency)

What-you-see-is-what-you-get (WYSIWYG) editors are great for visualizing the end product and generally offer a wide range of tools to achieve most things. The disadvantage, however, is that it becomes difficult to get consistency, and more time is often spent on formatting  rather than on content development. Frustration with formatting is generally the end result.

3. Functionality is missing (e.g., a list of images, image captions, equation editing)

When writing academic reports there is the need for a list of figures and tables. Google docs is inadequate in this regard, and MS Word requires that you update image numbers before the list is generated, making it a tedious time-waster if you have a lot of images.

4. Notes and comment need to be deleted before printing

In line comments and notes are very useful for keeping track of what is required to be done or for recording feedback. However, all these tools require inline comments to be deleted before output can be created, thereby losing valuable information.

5. Collaboration requires control over different versions

While Google docs has excellent collaboration features, it becomes ineffective due to its other limitations for academic writing. MS Word has no history functionality, so the only way to manage collaboration is to share files with your collaborations. Sharing files has been made easier with products like DropBox, but this generally causes the need to maintain different versions of the same document, which can be a nightmare.

Compare Writing Products

Table 1: Comparison of Word Processing tools


ComWriter is a cloud-based writing tool dedicated to the needs of students and faculty. Here are five reasons to make the switch:

1. Formatting (headings, text, captions) is contained in pre-defined styles ensuring everything is formatted consistently and quickly based on academic standards (or customize your own style)

2. Numbering is done as you export allowing you to make as many changes as you like without the need to re-format (image numbers, page numbers, heading numbers)

3. Cut-and-paste is replaced with drop-n-drag making it easier to restructure writing

4. History is saved allowing you to go back in time to see changes

5. Templates are structural rather than design-based providing a head start on writing that next paper

Future functions include notes & comments that do not need to be deleted, collaboration, automated glossary, history slider, and more.


About the author: Dr Linda Glassop is a published author and the founder of ComWriter, a cloud-based writing application for students and researchers. Linda has made it her mission to make writing to academic standards easy.




1 Comment

Filed under Academic referencing, Improve your writing

ComWriter has more theology journal styles than Endnote or Zotero

Theology journal style guides

Australia, 5 June, 2015

Today ComWriter released 21 theology journal style guides to their bank of styles, making it a more robust site for theology writing than either Endnote or Zotero. Of special interest is the ability of ComWriter to style references and footnotes to biblical literary standards.

Dr Glassop, founder & CEO of ComWriter said “Theology writing is complex given its historic origins”, “nonetheless, biblical literature deserves the support of modern technology”.

Other features unique to ComWriter include the use of biblical fonts (Greek, Hebrew and Lit), enabling Old Testament researchers, and other specialty fields, to compile accurate text online.

Dr Glassop said there were ten other journal style guides under development that would be released shortly. Currently, ComWriter supports:

  • AJS Review (Association for Jewish Studies)
  • Australian Biblical Review
  • Australian Ejournal of Theology
  • Church History
  • Communio: International Catholic Review
  • Harvard Theological Review
  • Heythrop Journal
  • History of Religions
  • International Journal of Practical Theology
  • International Journal of Systematic Theology
  • Irish Theological Quarterly
  • Journal of Beliefs and Values: Studies in religion and education
  • Journal of Biblical Literature
  • Journal of Early Christian Studies
  • Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
  • Journal of Ecclesiastical History
  • Pacifica: Australasian theological studies
  • Review of Biblical Literature
  • Semeia Studies
  • TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism
  • Theological Studies

These styles are primarily based on Chicago footnotes or the style developed by the Society for Biblical Literature (USA).

ComWriter is a cloud-based writing application for Faculty and students: write, reference, manage your library online, search more than 2 billion records for ready-made referencing. ComWriter is re-writing the way we write in Higher Education.

For more information visit: comwriter.com  or theology.comwriter.com


Leave a Comment

Filed under Academic referencing, ComWriter features, Improve your writing, Style guides

Now that is smart!

Academic writing, in fact most writing projects, all have a similar structure:

  • Cover, the first page/s of something. For example, a cover page, cover letter, or the like.
  • Preliminaries, or front matter. For example, an abstract, executive summary, a table of contents, list of figures.
  • Body: the main component that includes an introduction, key points, a conclusion.
  • Addenda, or back matter. For example, a bibliography, a glossary, appendices.

ComWriter, is the first writing tool to actually acknowledge this fundamental writing structure, and provides it as a background template on every writing project.

Structured writing editor

What’s a ‘smart list’ I hear you ask? Writing projects often contain ‘lists’, for example: a table of contents, a list of figures or tables, a bibliography. ComWriter automates these ‘lists’. All you have to do is Add a Smart List marker to tell the computer the location of the list. Now that is Smart!

Leave a Comment

Filed under ComWriter features

5 steps to perfect academic writing with ComWriter

ComWriter makes writing to academic standards easy with these 5 steps:

ComWriter has 5 steps to perfect academic writing

  1. If your favourite reference style isn’t Harvard (ComWriter includes Harvard as the default), then you can find your favourite Style and add it to My Styles (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago, Turabian).
  2. Add a few resources you already have (e.g., an authored book or journal article) using the Research tab.
  3. To get writing: Go to the Write tab an click Start a new project & fill out the form (remember to select your style), then click Start and the writing editor will open. In the writing editor add some existing writing (you can use cut-and-paste from Word) to see how the writing editor works (maybe grab some text from your last essay). Follow these steps:

Add writing objects (e.g., a paragraph, a heading, a list)
Enter text into writing objects
Highlight some text to see the formatting menu

  1. Insert an in-text reference citation or add a reference into a footnote using the resource/s you added.
  2. After you create your first project return to the Write dashboard, and click the PDF export button and your project will be automatically formatted using the style you chose. The file will go into your downloads.

Learn more  in our forums or check out our videos on YouTube.

1 Comment

Filed under ComWriter features, Improve your writing

ComWriter has an updated look…

We have received feedback that ComWriter was a little confusing. So we have made a few changes to the Navigation bar and added some ? tips.

Our new navigation bar is more intuitive:

  • Research: Add resources to cite in your projects
  • Write: New projects or edit exiting ones
  • Style: Find a style to automatically format your writing project
We have also added some tool tips to to explain some of our modern writing features.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ComWriter features

To p. or to pp.

Compose right with ComWriter

Sunday 6 April, 2014

Blog series: Academic referencing is stuck in a print era

Topic: Page numbering

I have been designing some new software to make writing to academic standards easy: ComWriter. Well, I didn’t know what I was getting into with academic referencing: APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, Turabian, AGLC, Bluebook, OSCOLA, Oxford, Vancouver, and the list goes on. Firstly, there is no official Harvard style, everyone seems to have their own flavour.

What I have uncovered is that academic referencing is stuck in a bygone era of print media. Trying to create the automated rules for referencing has been a very big challenge. We are winning the battle, but this blog series is going to highlight some of the, well, to put it bluntly, stupidity surrounding referencing.

Today I am picking on page numbering. That should be easy shouldn’t it? Well no. Let’s see how may ways there are to write pages:

A single page:

  1. p. 2
  2. p.2 [no space]
  3. p 2
  4. p2 [no space]
  5. 2 [the nude version]

A page span:

  1. pp. 235-237
  2. pp. 235-37
  3. pp. 235-7
  4. pp.235-237 [no space]
  5. pp.235-37 [no space]
  6. pp.235-7 [no space]
  7. pp 235-237 [no dot]
  8. pp 235-37 [no dot]
  9. pp 235-7 [no dot]
  10. 235-237
  11. 235-37
  12. 235-7

And, do we include pages in brackets (), [] or not? Which means a page span now has 36 options!

  • 2002 (2-3)
  • 2002 [2-3]
  • 2002 2-3 [no brackets]

Then, do we need to add a comma or a full stop afterwards, which means we now have 108 options for a page span!!!

  • 2002 (2-3)
  • 2002 [2-3]
  • 2002 2-3 [no brackets]
  • 2002. (2-3)
  • 2002. [2-3]
  • 2002. 2-3 [no brackets]
  • 2002, (2-3)
  • 2002, [2-3]
  • 2002, 2-3 [no brackets]

In summary, when writing a reference with page numbers included (I won’t list here the rules for when there are no pages!), a writer needs to ask:

  1. Is there a single page, or a page span (2 options)?
  2. How do I notate the numbers in the span (3 options: all numbers, last number, last two numbers)?
  3. Do I add brackets (3 options: square, round, none)?
  4. Does it need p or pp before the number/s (2 options: yes, no)?
  5. What punctuation do I include (3 options: comma, full stop, none)?
  6. Any spaces to add (2 options: yes or no)?

So, if my maths is correct that is: 2 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 2 x 2 =216 possibilities for writing page numbers! Easy peezie…yes?

But, when I have nailed down the exact configuration I need from the 216 options, I still need to consider:

  1. Is the configuration the same or different for: in-text citation, footnote, reference list?
  2. Where do I locate the pages in terms of the other data I need?

And that’s all a student needs to do to consider page numbering in their referencing! 

by Dr Linda Glassop

1 Comment

Filed under Academic referencing, Grammar and punctuation tips

Creating an Automated Bibliography

Writing with ComWriter makes it easy to add a bibliography by using Add Smart List. Watch this short video.

Creating a bibliography with ComWriter

Smart list markers

Smart list markers



Leave a Comment

Filed under ComWriter features

Abbreviations used in academic references

And others (et al.)

  • The latin is et alli, abbreviated to et al.
  • Et al. is used to indicate a list of authors in a reference; for example, Glassop, et al. 
  • Generally, always list all authors the first time, after that you can use the first author and et al.
  • Always consult your official reference style guide to check the requirements
The same place (ibid.)
  • The latin is ibidem, abbreviated to ibid.
  • When repeating a citation consecutively, you can put ibid. to indicate that the reference is exactly same as the previous one
  • For example, (ibid.)
  • If ibid. is used in a footnote, use a capital I: Ibid.
In the place cited (loc. cit.)
  • The latin is loco citato, abbreviated to loc. cit.
  • An alternative meaning is: in the same location
  • When repeating a citation, you can put loc. cit. to indicate that the reference is the same resource (author/s and date) and the same citation location (i.e., page number or paragraph) as the previous one
  • For example, “Smith (loc. cit.), also claims that…”
In the work cited (op. cit.)
  • The latin is opere citato, abbreviated to op. cit.
  • When repeating a citation, you can  put op. cit. to indicate that the reference is the same resource (author/s and date) as the previous one (but the citation location, i.e., page or paragraph number, is different)
  • For example (op. cit., p.3)

Leave a Comment

Filed under Grammar and punctuation tips