Use of Online Citation Tools by Faculty Members and Research Scholars of Sikkim University, Gangtok and Rajiv Gandhi University, Arunachal Pradesh, India: A Study

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the use of 31 selected online citation tools, how they become aware of the tools, there preference, source of the information, there main purpose of using the tools, the advantages of using the tools by the faculty members and research scholars of Rajiv Gandhi University, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim University with the help of designed evaluation checklist. The structured evaluation checklist contains 62 dichotomous questions and categorize in 7 broad categories. The finding of the study shows that Google scholar, Mendeley, APA Citation Maker, Endnote, and RefWorks were mostly known by the faculty members and research scholars while Mick Schroeder, Eturabian, Ultrasound of the week, Docear and OttoBib wear least aware among the faculty members and research scholars. The study also reveals that they use online citation tools mostly to write papers, for completion of dissertation/ thesis and for literature review.

Full text

VEETHIKA-An
International
Interdisciplinary Research
Journal
E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI:
10.48001/veethika.1004002
Volume: 10
Issue: 4: Oct-Dec
Year: 2024
Corresponding Author:
Paojangul Misao
Received:
October 18, 2024
Revised:
October 30, 2024
Accepted:
November 2, 2024
Published:
November 29, 2024
license:
Research Article
Use of Online Citation Tools by Faculty Member and
Research Scholars of Sikkim University, Gangtok And
Rajiv Gandhi University, Arunachal Pradesh, India: A
Study
Paojangul Misao ∗1and Manish Kumar †2
1Research Scholar, Department of Library and Information Science,University of Delhi,
Delhi-110007
2Associate Professor, Department of Library and Information Science,University of Delhi,
Delhi-110007
Abstract
This paper seeks to analyze the use of 31 selected online citation tools, how they become aware of the
tools, their preferences, sources of information, their main purpose of using the tools, the advantages
/ benets of using the tools by the faculty members and research scholars of Rajiv Gandhi University,
Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim University with the help of designed evaluation checklist. The structured
evaluation checklist contains 62 dichotomous questions and categorize in 7 broad categories. The nding
of the study indicates that faculty members and research scholars are most familiar with Google Scholar,
Mendeley, APA Citation Maker, Endnote, and RefWorks while there is a notable lack of awareness
regarding Mick Schroeder, Eturabian, Ultrasound of the Week, Docear and OttoBib among the faculty
members and research scholars. The study also reveals that online citation tools are mostly use to write
papers; completion of dissertation/ thesis and for conducting literature review.
Keywords: Citation Tools. Bibliographic Management Tools. Research Scholars. Faculty Members.
1 Introduction
A citation is both a signpost and an acknowledgement which signal the location of your sources
and reveals that you are grateful to that source (Hunter, 2006). “One of the most important
aspects of academic writing is making use of the ideas of other people’’since quality academic
writing is built upon the work of others (Madhusudhan, 2016; Spack, 1988).
Citing source is important since the currency of academia is ideas. Academicians want to
accrue that currency; and they want to get the credit for their contribution when some other
persons cites his ideas and give honors to those who initiated the ideas (Hunter, 2006). In writing
a paper the main voice should be your own. The objective of academic writing is to acknowledge
ideas of other people rather than reproducing their words (Coles & Wall, 1987; Spack, 1988).
∗Email: pjnmisao@gmail.com
†Email: kkmaniii2014@gmail.com
16

Inaccurate references create disturbance on the “capability and trustworthiness” of the author.
And it also said that the best way to assure is to verify each & every reference accuracy from the
original sources (Fenton et al., 2000). Faunce2001 ; Butcher and Davis’s (1985) put forward that
inaccurate citations add suspicion to the integrity of the author. Incomplete or misleading titles
of works, proper use of abbreviations in relation to variations, wrong volume, edition numbers,
incorrect paginations and the publication year (Hernon & Metoyer-Duran, 1992).
There are many formats for the use of citations for dierent eld such as American Psycholog-
ical Association (APA), they are mostly used in the eld of social and behavioral science, psychol-
ogy, education, anthropology; Harvard for social sciences, natural sciences, education, business;
Chicago for social, Biological and physical science, humanities; Modern language association (
MLA) for modern languages, literature; American Chemical Society (ACS) for chemistry; Amer-
ican Institute of Physics (AIP) for physics; IEEE for engineering and technology; Vancouver for
medicine, humanities, etc.
2 Literature Review
Citation symbolizes association of ideas (Giri & Das, 2011). A citation management tool is
any resource, program or service that supports citation management, or, the understanding,
gathering, organization, and uses of citations in research and information literacy (Childress,
2011). A search has been conducted on the terms “open source”, “Online Citation Tools”, “Web-
based Citation Tools”, and “Citation Tools” in LISA, Emerald, LISTA, Science direct, EBSCO
and other database to complete review of literature for the study, including search on e-journals
websites and Research gate. The present study is an attempt to evaluate the dierent aspects of
Online Citation Tools. Some of the important studies which have been reviewed on the subject
are as follows:
Reynolds’s (1986) Doctoral dissertation is undertaken in partial fulllment of the degree re-
quirements form a special class of research literature of major academic discipline since they
often record some aspect of a subject which is yet to be examined. (Hernon & Metoyer-Duran,
1992) wrote that incomplete or misleading titles of works, proper use of abbreviations in relation
to variations, wrong volume, edition numbers, incorrect paginations and the publication year.
Kushkowski, Parsons, and Wiese’s (2003) although they have a standardized format of disserta-
tion, research method used vary from scholar to scholar, citation styles, method of documentation,
and attribution reect the socialization process with in individual disciplines.
Giri and Das’s (2011) say “that Citation symbolizes association of ideas. Therefore, citation
indexing is considered as one of the most important tool for tracing ideas across a multitude of
disciplines and for evaluating R&D output of an individual, institution, country, or region. The
visibility of Indian R&D knowledge in the global scholarly system shows the poor accessibility and
less coverage of Indian periodicals by global indexing and abstracting services”. Ale Ebrahim’s
(2016) paper “study about how the Reference Management tools oers an easy way of collecting
references from online databases, organizing them in a database, and citing them in documents in
Microsoft Word, documents can be shared with colleagues/publish online, Reference Management
tools oers ways to connect with other researchers that you can’t nd on other platforms”.
Madhusudhan’s (2016) in his paper highlights the citation management tools and the needs of
students of Department of Library and Information Science, University of Delhi, and express that
how online citation tools t into their academic and research process . The mission of citation
tool has to provide students and faculty with a quick and simple means of citing resources with
great academic accuracy and honesty. The results in this paper indicate that all the respondents
are aware of online citation tools and using them occasionally. Gupta’s (2018) writes in his paper
Author(s): Paojangul Misao and Manish Kumar
VEETHIKA-An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal | E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI: 10.48001/veethika.1004002 | V.10 | 4: Oct-Dec 2024 | Copyright © 2024 QTanalytics®
17

citation errors in scholarly communication: A critical evaluation that an ideal reference list is
made up of reliable references, which are used and consulted during the research study, and is an
inseparable part of a scholarly communication. Omission and mistakenly transcriptions of various
elements of citation in reference lists, viz. names of author(s) and/or editor(s), book title, journal
title, article’s name, volume number, year pagination etc. can cause serious bibliographical
problems, and such error often exist in published reports indexing and abstracting sources for
a long time. It also highlights the challenging key issues related to citation errors, peer review
process and impact of peer review on citation errors. Possible solutions are also provided for
maintaining the top level accuracy in citation. Misao and Madhusudhan’s (2017) in this paper
analyze the various features and functions of online citation tools with the help of specially
designed evaluation checklist and rank them based on features/functions. A structured evaluation
checklist contains 90 dichotomous questions (features/functions) and categorized as nine broad
categories. The ndings of the study explore dierent features of online citation tools, which
reveal the highest rank score also.Awang Puteh et al.’s (2019) paper focuses on the appropriate
criteria in evaluating and choosing the right citation management tools (CMT). As the number
of citation management tools increased in recent years, users have problems in choosing the best
and right citation management tools that would suit their needs.
3 Online Citation Tools
Citation is a quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly
work.The following are the 31 selected online citation tools
1. Sons of citation Machine
2. BibMe
3. EasyBib
4. Cite Fast
5. Cite This for Me
6. Paper pile
7. ETurabian
8. MickSchroeder
9. Knight Cite
10. WorksCited4U
11. Noodle Tools
12. APA Citation Maker
13. Cite Maker
14. Citation Builder
15. Researchomatic
16. ClassTools.net
Author(s): Paojangul Misao and Manish Kumar
VEETHIKA-An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal | E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI: 10.48001/veethika.1004002 | V.10 | 4: Oct-Dec 2024 | Copyright © 2024 QTanalytics®
18

17. AcademicHelp.net
18. Writing House
19. Citation Producer
20. Biomedical Citation Maker
21. Ultrasound of the Week
22. Make Citation
23. Zotero
24. Mendeley
25. UW Libraries Search
26. Google Scholar
27. Citation Wizard
28. Docear
29. OttoBib
30. EndNote
31. RefWorks
4 Scope and Objectives of The Study
The present study is limited to the selected 31 online citation tools which functions during the
study period among the Faculty Members and Research Scholars of Rajiv Gandhi University and
Sikkim University.
The objectives of the study are:
i To know the awareness about Online Citation Tools among the Faculty Members and Research
scholars of Rajiv Gandhi University Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim University;
ii To know the sources of information about awareness of Online Citation Tools;
iii To study the purpose and frequency of use of online citation tools by Faculty Members and
Research Scholars under study;
iv To study the user’s preference of using dierent online citation tools;
v To study the comparison between manual and online citation tools in terms of time, accuracy
and coverage;
vi To know merit of using online citation tools among the faculty members and Research Scholars
of Rajiv Gandhi University, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim University;
Author(s): Paojangul Misao and Manish Kumar
VEETHIKA-An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal | E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI: 10.48001/veethika.1004002 | V.10 | 4: Oct-Dec 2024 | Copyright © 2024 QTanalytics®
19

Figure 1
5 Methodology
A structured evaluation checklist is designed keeping in view of the stated objectives and available
literature. The quantitative part of checklist contains 62 Dichotomous questions relating to the
7 Categories namely: Awareness of the online citation tools; sources of information; How much
aware; Preference/ Often used; Main purpose of Using; How you give references; and Merit or
advantages of using online citation tools. APA 8th edition is used in citing the references.
6 Data Analysis And Interpretation
A survey was conducted through a structure questionnaire circulated among the faculty members
and research scholars of Rajiv Gandhi University Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim University. The
responses received from both the Universities are presented in tables and gures and analyzed
by using simple method of calculation.
Table 1and Figure 1shows that the rst histogram represents Rajiv Gandhi University while
the second represents Sikkim University. All Faculty Members of Rajiv Gandhi University are
aware of all 31 online citation tools while few Faculty Members of Sikkim University are not aware
of few tools such as Sons of Citation Machines, Mick Schroeder, Knights Cite, and Ultrasound
of the Week. The sample size of Faculty Members of Rajiv Gandhi University and of Sikkim
University is 35 and 26 respectively. Faculty members of Rajiv Gandhi University are most aware
about Google scholar 29 followed by EndNote 21, Mendeley 19, and Zotero 15, While class tools
Net and OttoBib were the least aware among the online citation tools; While Faculty Members of
Sikkim University are most aware about Google scholar with 24, followed by Mendeley 20, APA
citation generator 17, Zotero 16 and EndNote 15. While ETurabian, AcademicHelpNet, Citation
producer and biomedical citation maker have the least aware with 1 each as shown in the above
Table 1and Figure 1.
The Table 1and Figure 2shows the awareness of the online citation tools among the research
scholars of Rajiv Gandhi University and Sikkim University. Research scholars from Rajiv Gandhi
University are totally not aware of writing house, ultrasound of the week, Docear and OttoBib;
while research scholars of Sikkim University are not totally aware of sons of citation machines, E
Turabian and Mick Schroeder. Google scholar is the most aware among the online citation tools
Author(s): Paojangul Misao and Manish Kumar
VEETHIKA-An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal | E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI: 10.48001/veethika.1004002 | V.10 | 4: Oct-Dec 2024 | Copyright © 2024 QTanalytics®
20

Table 1. Awareness about online citation tools
Sl. No. Online Citation tools Faculty Members Research Scholar
Yes No Yes No
RGU(N=35) SU(N=26) - RGU(N=40) SU(N=50) -
1 Sons of Citation Machine 7 - - 3 - -
2 BibMe 5 9 - 5 7 -
3 Easy Bib 6 2 - 5 5 -
4 Cite This For Me 7 4 - 7 7 -
5 Paper pile 7 2 - 7 1 -
6 Eturabian 6 1 - 3 - -
7 Mick Schroeder 5 - - 2 - -
8 Knight Cite 4 - - 3 2 -
9 WorkCited4 5 3 - 5 3 -
10 NoodleTools 6 3 - 2 1 -
11 APA Citation Generator 5 17 - 32 38 -
12 Cite Maker 9 7 - 4 4 -
13 Citation Builder 6 2 - 3 3 -
14 Citation Creation 5 2 - 5 2 -
15 Researchomatic 4 3 - 4 2 -
16 ClassToolsNet 2 - - 3 1 -
17 AcademicHelpNet 5 1 - 4 4 -
18 Writing House 5 2 - - 3 -
19 Citation Producer 4 1 - 2 2 -
20 Biomedical Citation Maker 7 1 - 2 1 -
21 Ultrasound of the Week 4 - - - 2 -
22 Make Citation 6 4 - 2 3 -
23 Zotero 15 16 - 12 20 -
24 Mendeley 19 20 - 24 33 -
25 UW Libraries Search 4 2 - - 4 -
26 Google Scholar 29 24 - 39 41 -
27 Citation Wizard 11 4 - 4 5 -
28 Docear 5 2 - - 1 -
29 OttoBib 3 2 - - 1 -
30 EndNote 21 15 - 16 22 -
31 RefWorks 11 10 - 7 14 -
Author(s): Paojangul Misao and Manish Kumar
VEETHIKA-An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal | E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI: 10.48001/veethika.1004002 | V.10 | 4: Oct-Dec 2024 | Copyright © 2024 QTanalytics®
21

Figure 2
with 39 and 41 respectively followed by APA citation generator with 32 and 38, Mendeley 24 and
33 respectively.
Research scholars from Rajiv Gandhi University are least aware of Mick Schroeder, Noodles
tools, citation producer, biomedical citation maker and make citation with 2 each. While research
scholars from Sikkim University are least aware of paper pile, noodles tools, AcademicHelpNet,
biomedical citation maker, Docear and OttoBib with single each respectively.
Table 2and Figure 3shows the source of information of faculty members of Rajiv Gandhi
University and Sikkim University. Through friends / fellow research scholar have 20 responses
with maximum followed by saw the link on the data base with 16, have learn the skills through
trial and error method 12 and so on. While Sikkim university faculty members get the sources
of information through friends / fellow research scholar the most with 11, followed by through
library website and saw link online journals with 7 each, through external sources with 6 and so
on. Rajiv Gandhi University and Sikkim university faculty members get the least information
from saw an advertisement with 5 and 1 responses respectively.
Figure 4shows that Rajiv Gandhi University Research Scholars get information mostly
through friends / fellow Research Scholars with 34 responses followed by guidance from the
supervisor with 29; saws link from online journals with 23 and so on. While they got least infor-
mation from saw an advertisement with 4. Sikkim University Research Scholars get information
mostly through friends/ fellow research scholar with 31 from 50 followed by guidance from super-
visor with 20; saw link on online journals with 12 and so on. While Sikkim University Research
Scholar get least information of online citation from saw an advertisement with 2.
Table 3and Figure 5shows that none of the Faculty Members of Rajiv Gandhi University
were fully aware of online citation tools such as sons of citation machines, BibMe, paper pile, E
Turabian, Mick Schroeder, class tools Net and OttoBib While Google scholar with 20 responses,
followed by APA citation generator with 15, EndNote with 12 were the most fully aware of online
citation tools among the faculty members of Rajiv Gandhi University. None of the online citation
tools such as Mick Schroeder, Knight Cite Noodles Tools, Researchomatic, Citation Producer,
Ultrasound of the Week, Docear and OttoBib were not partially aware of online citation tools
by Rajiv Gandhi University; while APA citation generator with 8 responses is the most partially
aware followed by Google scholar with 5, Mendeley and EndNote with 4 each. And citation
creation, class tools Net, AcademicHelpNet and UW Libraries with the least 1 each respectively.
Author(s): Paojangul Misao and Manish Kumar
VEETHIKA-An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal | E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI: 10.48001/veethika.1004002 | V.10 | 4: Oct-Dec 2024 | Copyright © 2024 QTanalytics®
22

Table 2. Sources of Information
Sources of Information Faculty Members Research Scholar
Yes Yes
RGU(N=35) SU(N=26) RGU(N=40) SU(N=50)
Through friends/ Fellow research
scholar
20 11 34 31
Guidance from the supervisor 10 5 29 20
Have learn the skills through trial
and error method
12 4 5 9
Through external sources 11 6 13 9
Through library website 7 7 9 8
Through library sta 7 2 8 5
By attending information literacy
program organized by Library
7 4 5 6
By attending workshop organized
by library
8 5 5 5
Saw an advertisement 5 1 4 2
Saw the link on the database 6 4 9 3
Saw link on online journals 16 7 23 12
Figure 3. Series 1- RGU, Series 2- SU
Author(s): Paojangul Misao and Manish Kumar
VEETHIKA-An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal | E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI: 10.48001/veethika.1004002 | V.10 | 4: Oct-Dec 2024 | Copyright © 2024 QTanalytics®
23

Figure 4. Series 1- RGU, Series 2- SU
Figure 5. Series 1-FA, Series 2- PA ,Series 3-N
Author(s): Paojangul Misao and Manish Kumar
VEETHIKA-An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal | E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI: 10.48001/veethika.1004002 | V.10 | 4: Oct-Dec 2024 | Copyright © 2024 QTanalytics®
24

Table 3. Awareness of online citation tools
Sl.
No.
Online Citation Tools Faculty Members (N=35) Research Scholar (N=40)
RGU SU RGU SU
FA PA N FA PA N FA PA N FA PA N
1 Sons of Citation Ma-
chine
- 3 4 - - - - 1 2 - - -
2 BibMe - 3 2 1 7 1 - 3 - 2 5 -
3 Easy Bib 1 3 2 - 2 - 2 2 - - 3 2
4 Cite this for me 3 3 2 2 2 - 3 3 1 3 3 -
5 Paper pile - 3 3 1 1 - 1 4 - - 1 -
6 Eturabian - 2 3 - 1 - - 3 - - - -
7 Mick Schroeder - - 4 - - - - 2 - - - -
8 Knight cite 1 - 4 - - - - 2 - - 1 1
9 WorkCited4 1 4 1 - 2 1 - 5 1 - 2 1
10 NoodleTools 1 - 4 - 3 - - 2 - - 1 -
11 APA Citation Generator 15 8 3 10 7 - 20 10 2 22 11 5
12 Cite Maker 4 2 3 2 4 1 - 4 - - 2 -
13 Citation Builder 3 2 1 1 2 - 1 2 - - - 1
14 Citation Creation 2 1 2 - 2 - 2 2 1 - - 1
15 Researchomatic 3 - 1 1 2 - 2 2 - 1 - 1
16 ClassToolsNet - 1 1 - - - - 1 2 - 1 -
17 AcademicHelpNet 1 1 3 - 2 - 1 2 - 1 2 1
18 Writing House 1 2 2 2 - - - - - - 1 1
19 Citation Producer 1 - 3 - 1 - - 1 - - 2 -
20 Biomedical Citation
Maker
2 3 2 - - 1 - - - - - 1
21 Ultrasound of the Week 1 - 3 - - - - - - - - 2
22 Make Citation 2 2 2 2 2 - - - 1 1 2 1
23 Zotero 8 3 4 8 8 - 1 3 5 10 5 4
24 Mendeley 11 4 4 13 7 - 11 9 1 21 9 2
25 UW Libraries Search 3 1 2 - 2 - - - - 1 2 -
26 Google Scholar 20 5 4 19 5 - 33 4 2 28 12 1
27 Citation Wizard 6 2 3 3 1 - - 2 - - 4 -
28 Docear 2 - 3 2 1 - - - - - 1 -
29 OttoBib - - 3 - 1 - - - - - - 1
30 EndNote 12 4 5 6 9 - 2 7 3 7 9 6
31 RefWorks 6 2 3 3 7 - 1 2 3 5 5 4
Author(s): Paojangul Misao and Manish Kumar
VEETHIKA-An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal | E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI: 10.48001/veethika.1004002 | V.10 | 4: Oct-Dec 2024 | Copyright © 2024 QTanalytics®
25

Figure 6. Series 1-FA, Series 2- PA ,Series 3-N
EndNote with 5, sons of citation machines, Knight cite, Mick Schroeder, Noodles tools with 4 each
were the most neutrally aware while Workcited4, citation builder, Researchomatic, ClassToolsNet
were the least neutrally aware online citation tools.
Table 3and Figure 6shows that Sons of Citation Machine, Mick Schroeder, Knight cite,
ClassToolsNet and Ultrasound of the Week online citation tools were not totally aware by the
faculty members of Sikkim University. None of the Faculty members of Sikkim University were
fully aware Easy Bib, E Turabian, Workited4, Noodle Tools, Citation Creation, AcademicHelp-
Net, Citation Producer, Biomedical Citation Maker, UW Libraries search and OttoBib while
Google Scholar 19, followed by Mendeley 13, APA citation generator 10 have the maximum fully
aware among the selected online citation tools. Writing house and Biomedical Citation Maker
online citation tools are not partially aware by the faculty members of Sikkim University. While
Zotero 8, APA citation generator 7 and Mendeley 7 respective have the maximum number of par-
tially aware among the faculty members of Sikkim University. Bib Me, WorkCited4, Cite Maker
and Biomedical Citation Maker are neutrally aware of the online citation tools while others were
not neutrally aware.
Table 3and Figure 7also shows that Research scholar from Rajiv Gandhi University were
totally not aware of Writing house, Biomedical Citation Maker, Ultrasound of the week, Docear
and OttoBib while Google scholar 33, APA citation generator 20 and Mendeley 11 have the
maximum fully awareness of online citation tools. APA citation generator 10, Mendeley 9 and
EndNote 7 have the maximum partially awareness whereas Sons of Citation Machine, ClassTool-
sNet and citation producer have one each while make citation with none. Zotero 5 have the
maximum followed by EndNote and RefWorks with three each, the research scholars of Rajiv
Gandhi University were not Neutrally aware of the online citation tools since more than 13 tools
were with zero awareness.
Table 3and Figure 8Research scholars from Sikkim University are not totally aware of sons
of citation machine, Eturabian and Mick Schroeder. Google scholar is the most fully awareness
among the online citation tools with 28, followed by APA citation generator 22, and Mendeley
21 while easy bib, paper pile, knight cite, workcited4, noodle tools, citation creation, cite maker,
citation builder, ClassToolsNet, writing house, citation producer, biomedical citation maker,
ultrasound of the week, citation wizard, Docear, OttoBib were not fully aware by the research
scholar of Sikkim university. Sikkim University Research Scholars were partially aware of Google
Author(s): Paojangul Misao and Manish Kumar
VEETHIKA-An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal | E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI: 10.48001/veethika.1004002 | V.10 | 4: Oct-Dec 2024 | Copyright © 2024 QTanalytics®
26

Figure 7. Series 1-FA, Series 2- PA ,Series 3-N
Figure 8. Series 1-FA, Series 2- PA ,Series 3-N
scholar 12, APA Citation Generator 11, Mendeley and EndNote with 9 each while Citation
Producer, Citation Creation, Researchomatic, Biomedical Citation Maker, Ultrasound of the
Week and OttoBib were without a single partially aware about online citation tools. EndNote
has the maximum neutrally aware of the online citation tools with 6 followed by APA citation
generator 5, Zotero and RefWorks 4 each respectively. While BibMe, Cite This for Me, Paper
pile, Noodles tools, Cite Maker, ClasstoolsNet, Citation Producer, UW Libraries Search, Docear
and OttoBib online citation tools were without a single neutrally aware.
The table 4and Figure 9shows that only few online citation tools were preferably/ often
used on a daily basis by the faculty Members of Rajiv Gandhi University with most by Google
Scholar 10, followed by APA citation Generator, Mendeley, EndNote with 2 each and Citation
Creation, Zotero and Ref works with a single each. While other tools were not use in a daily
basis. APA citation Generator 6; Mendeley and Google Scholar 4 each; BibMe, UW Libraries
search, Zotero, EndNote and Ref works 2 each; Make citation, Citation Wizard, Researchomatic,
EasyBib, Citation Creation, cite maker, citation builder, workcited4 and cite this for me 1 each;
While other tools were not used in two to three times a week. APA citation Generator 4; Google
Author(s): Paojangul Misao and Manish Kumar
VEETHIKA-An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal | E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI: 10.48001/veethika.1004002 | V.10 | 4: Oct-Dec 2024 | Copyright © 2024 QTanalytics®
27

Table 4. Preference / Often Used Citation Tools
Sl.
No.
Online Citation Tools Faculty Members Research Scholars
RGU SU RGU SU
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1 Sons of Citation Machine - - 1 2 - - - - - 1 - - - - - -
2 BibMe - 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 1 1 1 - - 2 3
3 Easy Bib - 1 - 3 - 1 - 1 - - 1 2 - - - 3
4 Cite This For Me - 1 - 3 - 1 - 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 2 1
5 Paper Pile - - 1 3 - - - 1 - 2 1 1 - - - 1
6 Eturabian - - - 3 - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - -
7 Mick Schroeder - - - 3 - - - - - 1 1 - - - - -
8 Knight Cite - - - 3 - - - - - - 1 - - - - 2
9 WorkCited4 - 1 1 2 - - - 1 - - 1 3 - - - 3
10 Noodle Tools - - 1 3 - - - 2 - - 1 - - - - 1
11 APA Citation Generator 2 6 4 9 5 6 - 4 4 6 4 10 7 8 5 11
12 Cite Maker - 1 - 3 - 2 - 4 - - 1 1 - 1 - 2
13 Citation Builder - 1 - 3 - 2 - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - -
14 Citation Creation 1 1 - 2 - - - 2 - - 1 3 - - - 1
15 Researchomatic - 1 1 2 - - - 3 - - 3 - - - - 1
16 ClassToolsNet - - 2 3 - - - - - - 1 2 - - - 1
17 AcademicHelpNet - - - 4 - - 1 - - - 1 2 - - - 3
18 Writing House - - - 3 - - 2 - - - - - - - - 1
19 Citation Producer - - - 3 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 3
20 Biomedical Citation Maker - - - 3 - - - 1 - - - - - - - -
21 Ultrasound of the Week - - - 3 - - - - - - - - - - - -
22 Make Citation - 1 - 3 - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 3
23 Zotero 1 2 2 6 2 5 - - 2 - 2 2 4 5 4 5
24 Mendeley 2 4 1 11 4 5 - - 2 2 4 11 5 10 2 14
25 UW Libraries Search - 2 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 3
26 Google Scholar 10 4 3 11 10 7 2 3 17 8 6 5 17 14 6 3
27 Citation Wizard 1 1 1 6 - 2 - - - 1 - - - 1 - 1
28 Docear - - 1 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 1
29 OttoBib - - 1 3 - - 1 - - - - - - - - -
30 EndNote 2 2 3 13 1 6 - 5 - 2 2 7 2 2 2 12
31 RefWorks. 1 2 2 6 - 2 1 4 - 2 - 6 3 - 1 6
Note: 1-Daily; 2-two to three times a week; 3-Once a week; 4-Once a month.
Author(s): Paojangul Misao and Manish Kumar
VEETHIKA-An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal | E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI: 10.48001/veethika.1004002 | V.10 | 4: Oct-Dec 2024 | Copyright © 2024 QTanalytics®
28

Figure 9. Series 1- daily, Series 2- 2-3 times a week, Series 3-once a week, Series 4- once a month
Figure 10. Series 1- daily, Series 2- 2-3 times a week, Series 3-once a week, Series 4- once a month
Scholar and Endnote 3 each; Ref works , Zotero and ClassToolsNet 2 each; Sons of citation
machine, paper pile, workcited4, noodles tools, Researchomatic, Mendeley, UW libraries search,
citation wizard, Docear and OttoBib 1 each; While other tools were not used once a week.
Endnote 13; Mendeley and Google Scholar 11 each; and APA citation Generator 9; were the
most used tools once a month followed by Zotero, citation wizard, and Ref work with 6 each
while others were sparsely used.
The table 4and Figures 10 shows that Sons of citation Machines, Mick Schroeder, Knight
cite, ClassToolsNet, ultrasound of the week, UW libraries search and Docear were totally not
use by faculty members of Sikkim University. Google scholar 10; APA citation Generator 5;
Mendeley 4; Zotero 2 and EndNote 1 respectively; while other tools were not use in daily basis.
Google scholar 7; APA citation Generator and EndNote 6 each; BibMe 3; Ref works, Cite Maker
and Citation Builder 2 each; EasyBib and Cite this for me 1 each; while other tools were not use
two to three times a week by faculty members of Sikkim University. Writing House and Google
scholar 2; Academic help Net, OttoBib and Ref works 1 each; while other tools were not use once
a week. EndNote 5; APA citation Generator, Cite Maker and Ref works 4; Researchomatic and
Google Scholar 3 each; Noodles Tools 2; Make Citation, Citation Producer, Biomedical Citation
Maker, Bib Builder, Workcited4 and E Turabian 1 each; while other tools were not used once a
month by faculty members of Sikkim University.
The Table 4and Figure 11 shows that none of the research scholar of Rajiv Gandhi University
Author(s): Paojangul Misao and Manish Kumar
VEETHIKA-An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal | E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI: 10.48001/veethika.1004002 | V.10 | 4: Oct-Dec 2024 | Copyright © 2024 QTanalytics®
29

Figure 11. Series 1- daily, Series 2- 2-3 times a week, Series 3-once a week, Series 4- once a month
preferred to used writing house, biomedical citation maker, ultrasound of the week, UW libraries
search, Docear and OttoBib. The table 4 gure 4.3 also shows that only few online citation tools
were preferably/ often used on daily basis by the Research scholar of Rajiv Gandhi University
such as Google scholar 17, APA citation generator 4, Zotero and Mendeley 2 each, Cite this for
me and make citation 1 each. While the Research scholars of Rajiv Gandhi University were not
preferred to use daily the remaining online citation tools. The research scholar of Rajiv Gandhi
University preferred to used two to three time a week of online citation tools such as Google
scholar 8 with the maximum, followed by APA citation generator with 6, Paper pile, Mendeley,
EndNote and RefWorks with two each, sons of citation machine, Bib Me, Cite this for me, Mick
Schroeder and citation wizard with one each respectively while other online citation tools were
not preferred by the research scholar. The research scholar from the Rajiv Gandhi University were
not preferring to used sons of citation machines, citation producer, make citation, citation wizard,
RefWorks on once a week. Whereas Google scholar 6, APA citation generator and Mendeley with
4 each, Researchomatic 3, Zotero and EndNote with 2 each and the remaining online citation
tools were with a single respectively. The research scholar of Rajiv Gandhi University mostly
preferred to used once a month on Mendeley 11, APA citation generator 10, EndNote 7, RefWorks
6, Google scholar 5, Cite this for me 4, WorkCited4 and citation creation 3 each, class tools,
AcademicHelpNet and Zotero 2 each respectively while the remaining online citation tools were
with one and zero respectively.
The Table 4and Figures 12 shows that none of the research scholar of Sikkim University
preferred to use sons of citation machines, ETurabian, Mick Schroeder, Biomedical Citation
Maker, Ultrasound of the Week and Writing house. The table 6.4 gure 6.4.4 shows that only few
online citation tools were preferably/ often used on daily basis by the Research scholar of Sikkim
University such as Google scholar 17 responses, APA citation generator 7, Mendeley 5, Zotero
4, RefWorks 3, EndNote 2 and Cite this for me 1 respectively. While the Research scholars of
Sikkim University were not preferred to use daily the remaining online citation tools. The research
scholar of Sikkim University preferred to used two to three time a week of online citation tools
such as Google scholar 14 with the maximum, followed by Mendeley 10, APA Citation Generator
with 8, Zotero 5, Cite this for me 3, EndNote 2, Cite Maker, Citation Builder and Citation
Wizard with one each. While the Research scholars of Sikkim University were not preferred to
use two to three times a week to the remaining online citation tools. The research scholar from
Author(s): Paojangul Misao and Manish Kumar
VEETHIKA-An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal | E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI: 10.48001/veethika.1004002 | V.10 | 4: Oct-Dec 2024 | Copyright © 2024 QTanalytics®
30

Figure 12. Series 1- daily, Series 2- 2-3 times a week, Series 3-once a week, Series 4- once a month
Figure 13. Series 1- FM RGU, Series 2- FM SU, Series 3- RS RGU, Series 4-RS SU
the Sikkim University preferred to use Google scholar 6, Zotero 4, Bib Me, Cite this for me,
Mendeley and EndNote two each and RefWorks with one. While the remaining online citation
tools were without a single user. The research scholar of Sikkim University mostly preferred
to used once a month on Mendeley 14, EndNote 12, APA Citation Generator 11, RefWorks 6,
Zotero 5, BibMe.Org, Cite this for me, workcited4, AcademicHelpNet, Citation Producer, Make
Citation, UW libraries and Google scholar with three each, Knight Cite and cite make two each
respectively while the remaining online citation tools were with one and zero respectively.
Table 5. Main purpose of using online citation tools
Main purpose of using Online citation tools Faculty Members Research Scholar
RGU SU RGU SU
For writing research paper 34 21 33 34
For completion of assignment 13 4 9 18
For completion of project work 16 12 10 14
For completion of Dissertation/ Thesis 23 13 24 37
For Literature review 23 16 31 37
Table 5and Figure 13 shows the main purpose of using online citation tools by the faculty
members of Rajiv Gandhi University were for writing research paper with 34 followed by for
completion of thesis/ dissertation and for literature review with 23 each, for completion of project
work with 16 and for completion of assignment with the least with 13. The main purpose / reason
Author(s): Paojangul Misao and Manish Kumar
VEETHIKA-An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal | E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI: 10.48001/veethika.1004002 | V.10 | 4: Oct-Dec 2024 | Copyright © 2024 QTanalytics®
31

Figure 14
of using online citation tools by faculty members of Sikkim University were for writing research
paper with the maximum 21, followed by for literature review 16, for completion of thesis/
dissertation with 13, for completion of project work with 12 and for completion of assignment
with 4 respectively. Research scholar from Rajiv Gandhi University were mainly using online
citation tools for writing research paper with the maximum 33, followed by for literature review
31, for completion of thesis/ dissertation with 24, for completion of project work with 10 and
for completion of assignment with 9 respectively. Research scholars from Sikkim University were
mainly using online citation tools for completion of thesis/ dissertation and for literature review
with 37 each followed by for writing research paper with 34, for completion of assignment and
for completion of project work with 18 and 14 respectively.
Table 6. Merit of Online Citation Tools
Merit of Online Citation Tools Research Scholar Faculty Member
RGU SU RGU SU
Manually 11 5 8 8
Using online citation tools 5 6 1 14
Or both 18 13 27 23
Table 6and Figure 14 shows that Rajiv Gandhi University faculty members’ gives references
in works were done mostly by or both with 18 followed by manually with 11 and least with using
online citation tools with 5. Sikkim university faculty members’ give references in work were
done mostly by or both with 13 followed by with using online citation tools with 6 and the by
manually with 5. Rajiv Gandhi University Research scholars’ gives references in there works were
done mostly by or both with 27 followed by manually with 8 and least with using online citation
tools with 1. Sikkim university Research scholars give references in there works were done mostly
by or both with 23 followed by with using online citation tools with 14 and the by manually with
8.
Table 7and Figure 15 shows that the merit or advantages of online citation tools by faculty
members of Rajiv Gandhi University were helpful in research work with 30, followed by save time
28, systematic references tools for research with 26, save eorts and provide accurate references
with 25 each respectively. The merit or advantages of online citation tools by faculty members
of Sikkim University were helpful in research work with 23, followed by save time and systematic
references tools for research with 20 each, provide accurate references with 16 and save eorts
with 15 respectively. The merit or advantages of online citation tools by research scholars of
Rajiv Gandhi University were helpful in research work maximum with 34, followed by save time
Author(s): Paojangul Misao and Manish Kumar
VEETHIKA-An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal | E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI: 10.48001/veethika.1004002 | V.10 | 4: Oct-Dec 2024 | Copyright © 2024 QTanalytics®
32

Figure 15
Table 7. Merit of Online Citation Tools
Merit of Online Citation Tools Research Scholar Faculty Member
RGU SU RGU SU
Save time 28 20 32 39
Save eorts 25 15 26 28
Provide accurate references 25 16 22 26
Helpful in research work 30 23 34 39
Systematic references tools for Research 26 20 23 34
32, save eorts with 26, systematic references tools for research with 23, and provide accurate
references with 22 respectively. The merit or advantages of online citation tools by research
scholars of Sikkim University were helpful in research work and save time maximum with 39,
followed by systematic references tools for research with 34, save eorts with 28, and provide
accurate references with 26 respectively.
7 Suggestions
i Most of the online citation tools are partially aware among the faculty members and research
scholars of Rajiv Gandhi University and Sikkim University. So workshop or seminar should
be organized to make fully aware of the online citation tools.
ii Manual creation for document is cumbersome process and it takes a lot of time and labors
for researchers, so manual must be improve from manual cite to auto cites.
iii Some of the selected tools were not aware by the faculty members and research scholars of
Rajiv Gandhi University and Sikkim University. So the library sta as well as the librarian
should be fully aware of the online citation tools rst so as to impart knowledge to the faculty
members and research scholars.
iv Without basis understanding of the format and citation styles, researchers using online cita-
tion tools may commit error in creation of proper citation. Citation guides will be provided
to help the faculty members and research scholars in visual / video tutorials that will help
the user in creating easy citations.
Author(s): Paojangul Misao and Manish Kumar
VEETHIKA-An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal | E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI: 10.48001/veethika.1004002 | V.10 | 4: Oct-Dec 2024 | Copyright © 2024 QTanalytics®
33

8 Findings and Conclusion
The ndings of the studies indicate that:
i Google Scholar is the most prominent tools among the faculty members and research scholars
of Rajiv Gandhi University and Sikkim University with the awareness level 29 and 24 among
faculty members, 39 and 41 among research scholars followed by APA citation generator with
5, 17, 32 and 38; Mendeley with 19, 20, 24 and 33; EndNote 21, 15, 16 and 22; and Zotero
with 15, 16, 12 and 20 respectively.
ii Faculty members and Research scholars of Rajiv Gandhi University and Sikkim University
primarily learn online citation tools mostly through friends or fellow scholars with 20, 11, 34
and 31; followed by guidance from supervisor with 10, 5, 29, 20; saw link from journals with
16, 7, 23 and 12; and through external sources 16, 6, 13 and 9 Respectively. And others know
it through Library websites, through library sta, by attending information literacy program
or workshop or through advertisement.
iii The data presented on table no. 5.3 indicates that Google scholar, APA citation generator,
Mendeley, EndNote, Zotero and RefWorks reveals the highest awareness among online citation
tools, while other tools were partially aware.
iv The data presented on table no. 5.4 indicates that Google Scholar is the most preferred
citation tools. Succeeded by Mendeley, APA citation generator, EndNote, Zotero and Ref
Works in terms of user preference.
v The primary objective of utilizing online citation tools is to assist in the writing research
papers, followed by their use in completions of thesis or dissertation, performing literature
review, and other related task as shown in the g. 5.5.
vi The majority of the respondents expressed their preference for utilizing both online and
manual in making references followed by manually and using online citation tools with the
last.
vii Using online citation tools has numerous benets such as, helpful in research work with the
maximum followed by save time, save eorts, systematic references tools for research, and
provide accurate references.
The ndings of the study will not only help the faculty members and research scholars to
understand more about the awareness among the two universities but it will also help readers
why they are using the online citation tools as well as which tools is mostly use by the two
universities in giving references, the preference of using manual and online citation tools and the
advantages of using the tools as said in the above.
References
Ale Ebrahim, N. (2016). The use of Reference Management tools to improve Citation. Strategies to
Enhance Research Visibility, Impact Citations, 1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.
2065176 % 5Cnhttp : / / works . bepress . com / aleebrahim / 118 / %5Cnhttp : / / www . slideshare .
net /NaderEbrahim /the - use - of- reference - management- tools - to - improve- citation %5Cnhttp :
//issuu.com/naderaleebrahim/docs/reference_management_tools_by_nad
Awang Puteh, L. A., Mat Yatin, S. F., Zamberi, F. A., & Bahari, F. (2019). Researching and aca-
demic writing using citation management tool (CMT). Journal of Information and Knowledge
Management (JIKM), 9(1), 1–20.
Author(s): Paojangul Misao and Manish Kumar
VEETHIKA-An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal | E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI: 10.48001/veethika.1004002 | V.10 | 4: Oct-Dec 2024 | Copyright © 2024 QTanalytics®
34

Butcher, P., & Davis, H. (1985). How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals? British
Medical Journal (Clinical research ed.), 291(6506), 1421. https: //doi.org / 10 .1136/bmj. 291 .
6506.1421
Childress, D. (2011). Citation tools In academic libraries: Best practices for reference and instruction.
Reference and User Services Quarterly, 51(2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.51n2.143
Coles, N., & Wall, S. V. (1987). Conict and Power in the Reader-Responses of Adult Basic Writers.
College English, 49(3), 298–314. https://doi.org/10.58680/ce198711488
Faunce, G. J., & Soames Job, R. F. (2001). The accuracy of reference lists in ve experimental psychology
journals. American Psychologist, 56(10), 829–830. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003- 066x.56.10.
829
Fenton, J. E., Brazier, H., Souza, A., Hughes, J. P., & McShane, D. P. (2000). The accuracy of citation
and quotation in otolaryngology/head and neck surgery journals. Clinical Otolaryngology, 25(1),
40–44. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2273.2000.00322.x
Giri, R., & Das, A. K. (2011). Indian Citation Index: A new web platform for measuring performance
of Indian research periodicals. Library Hi Tech News, 28(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/
07419051111145154
Gupta, V. K. (2018). Citation errors in ’Libres: Library and Information Science Research e-Journal.’ …
and Information Science: An International Journal. https:// www . researchgate . net/profile/
Vishnu - Gupta - 4 / publication / 328782700 _ Citation _ Errors _ in _ ’ Libres _ Library _ and _
Information _ Science _ Research _ e - journal ’ /links / 5be294374585150b2ba46217 / Citation -
Errors-in-Libres-Library-and-Information- Science-Research-e-jo
Hernon, P., & Metoyer-Duran, C. (1992). Literature reviews and inaccurate referencing: An exploratory
study of academic librarians. College and Research Libraries, 53(6), 499–512. https://doi.org/
10.5860/crl_53_06_499
Hunter, J. (2006). The importance of citation. URL: http://web. grinnell. edu/Dean/Tutorial/EUS/IC.
pdf …, 1–5. http://web.grinnell.edu/dean/tutorial/EUS/IC.pdf
Kushkowski, J. D., Parsons, K. A., & Wiese, W. H. (2003). Master’s and Doctoral Thesis Citations:
Analysis and Trends of a Longitudinal Study. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(3), 459–479.
https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2003.0062
Madhusudhan, M. (2016). Use of online citation tools by students and research scholars of department
of library and information science, University of Delhi. DESIDOC Journal of Library and In-
formation Technology, 36(3), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.36.3.9428
Misao, P., & Madhusudhan, M. (2017). Online Citation Tools: A Comparative Study. World Digital
Libraries – An International Journal, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.18329/09757597/2017/10209
Reynolds, M. (1986). Guide to theses and dissertations: An international bibliography of bibliographies.
World Development, 14(5), 674. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750x(86)90137-3
Spack, R. (1988). Initiating ESL Students into the Academic Discourse Community: How Far Should We
Go? TESOL Quarterly, 22(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587060
Author(s): Paojangul Misao and Manish Kumar
VEETHIKA-An International Interdisciplinary Research Journal | E-ISSN: 2454-342X
DOI: 10.48001/veethika.1004002 | V.10 | 4: Oct-Dec 2024 | Copyright © 2024 QTanalytics®
35