References for scientific papers: why not standardise to one global style?
- DOI
- 10.5588/pha.13.0066
- Published
- 2013 Sep 21
- Container
- Public health action
- Publisher
- Not recorded
- Open access
- yes
Credibility signals
limited evidence Score 45/100 under policy 1.0.0. This is a metadata assessment, not a judgment of the paper's conclusions.
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Cite this work
BibTeX
@article{allodium:10.5588/pha.13.0066,
title = {References for scientific papers: why not standardise to one global style?},
author = {Harries AD and Kumar AM and Satyanarayana S and Bissell K and Hinderaker SG and Edginton M and Reid AJ and Zachariah R},
year = {2013},
journal = {Public health action},
doi = {10.5588/pha.13.0066},
url = {https://doi.org/10.5588/pha.13.0066}
}RIS
TY - JOUR TI - References for scientific papers: why not standardise to one global style? AU - Harries AD AU - Kumar AM AU - Satyanarayana S AU - Bissell K AU - Hinderaker SG AU - Edginton M AU - Reid AJ AU - Zachariah R PY - 2013 JO - Public health action DO - 10.5588/pha.13.0066 UR - https://doi.org/10.5588/pha.13.0066 ER -
APA
AD, H., AM, K., S, S., K, B., SG, H., M, E., AJ, R., & R, Z. (2013). References for scientific papers: why not standardise to one global style?. Public health action. https://doi.org/10.5588/pha.13.0066
Source records
- pubmed · retrieved 2026-11-10T06:11:58.116Z
- europe-pmc · retrieved 2026-11-10T06:11:58.132Z