EdCitation publishes this comparison, and makes one of the two tools in it. The short answer to EdCitation vs MyBib is that they are best at different jobs. For a reference built from the publisher's record and screened for retraction, and for checking that a finished list is real, EdCitation is the better tool. For a long list kept over a term in thousands of styles, with a browser extension and a download to Word, MyBib is. Every fact about MyBib was read on its own pages, checked on 23 September 2026, prices as the page shows them.
Where EdCitation is the best tool is the record. Cite a source builds a reference from a DOI, a title, a PubMed ID or an ISBN and screens it for retraction. Verify references looks every entry in a pasted list or an uploaded paper up in the publisher's record, flags retracted papers, never shows "could not check" as "not found", and matches every in-text citation to the list. Both are free with no account. MyBib's form warns that "Search results can contain incorrect information", and none of its pages describes a check that a reference exists (MyBib, n.d.-a, n.d.-b, n.d.-c, n.d.-d). In EdCitation's test on 23 September 2026, it labelled a paper The Lancet retracted in 2010 "Credible".
What MyBib does that EdCitation does not is just as plain: over 9,000 styles to our six, extensions for Chrome, Firefox and Edge, downloads to Word, Google Docs, BibTeX and JSON, and no advertising ever.
What does each tool do?
MyBib builds and keeps a bibliography; EdCitation builds a reference from the record and checks the finished list. The table is by job.
| Job | MyBib | EdCitation |
|---|---|---|
| A reference from a DOI, ISBN or PubMed ID | DOI, ISBN or title; a PubMed ID found nothing in our test | DOI, title, PubMed ID or ISBN, screened for retraction |
| A reference from a web page | By URL, or from the open page with its extension | By web address |
| A list built up over a term | Projects and folders in the browser; cloud backup with Plus | Lists with a free account, tagged, each in its own style |
| Checking that the list is real | Not on its pages; its form says to double-check | Every entry looked up: verified, "check this" or not found |
| Retracted papers | No warning of its own in our test | Flagged from the Retraction Watch database |
| Styles | Over 9,000 | Six |
| Export | Word, Google Docs, BibTeX, JSON | Copy with italics; no export file |
| Price and account | Free, no account; Plus $2 a month, paid annually | Free, no account; Pro $8 a month |
| Advertising | None, ever | Labelled sponsored cards, never inside a result |
Where is EdCitation the better tool?
For the reference before it is cited and for the finished list, EdCitation is the best tool, for one reason: it looks a reference up in the publisher's record and never writes one, and it says so when it could not look.
The reference, from the record, screened for retraction
Cite a source takes a DOI, a title, a PubMed ID or an ISBN and builds the reference from the publisher's record (Crossref, DataCite, PubMed and Open Library are named in the site's footer), in APA 7, MLA 9, Chicago 18 author-date, Harvard (Cite Them Right), IEEE and Vancouver, and screens the source against the Retraction Watch database before it is cited. It is free with no account, with a page for APA 7 alone. The test below shows why the screen matters: MyBib returned the Wakefield paper as "Credible", and nothing on its pages says it checks retractions. EdCitation's generator was not run in this session; what it does is taken from its own pages.
The finished list, every entry looked up
Verify references takes a pasted list or the uploaded paper, as a Word document or a PDF. Each entry is looked up by its DOI, or by title, year and first author, and comes back verified, doubtful (shown as "check this") or not found. A retracted paper is flagged even when every detail is right; an index that did not answer is shown as "could not check", never as "not found". With the whole paper uploaded, every in-text citation is matched to an entry and every entry back to the text. No model reads the paper and nothing is kept. References from a file, part of Pro at $8 a month, does the same in the dashboard. MyBib has a tab labelled Pre-formatted; none of its pages describes looking a pasted reference up to see whether it exists.
The paper against its own brief
Check your paper, also free, reads an assignment's instructions into a checklist: word limits, required sections, style, number of sources. MyBib does not claim to do this. EdCitation never writes any part of a paper.
Where is MyBib the better tool?
For a bibliography kept over a term, in almost any style, and moved into a document, MyBib is the better tool, and for most of these jobs EdCitation is not a tool at all.
Styles, extensions and exports
MyBib's home page says it uses "the same citation formatting engine" as Zotero and Mendeley and offers "over 9,000 styles", naming APA 6 and 7, Chicago, Harvard and MLA 7 and 8 (MyBib, n.d.-b). Its blog announced MLA 9 on 12 August 2021 (MyBib, 2021), so the home page's list is behind its own product. Its Chicago page offers the 17th edition, where EdCitation offers the 18th, author-date only. Its premium-features page lists extensions for Chrome, Firefox and Edge, downloads to Word, BibTeX and JSON, and import into Zotero or Mendeley; add-ons for Google Docs and Word are "coming soon". The Chrome extension's listing, updated 18 September 2026, says you browse to any page, including a PDF, and click the MyBib button for a citation of it (MyBib, 2026b).
A list kept over a term
The July 2026 post describes a rebuilt MyBib that works offline, with folders inside folders, undo and redo, an in-text citation builder with locators, and prompts that flag likely mistakes (MyBib, 2026a). A 2019 post added a Share button that sends a link to group members, with live alerts when one of them changes something (MyBib, 2019). EdCitation's free account keeps and shares reference lists; it has no folders, no offline mode and no in-text citation builder.
Is MyBib free, and does it need an account?
MyBib is free without an account, and its pages disagree about whether anything is paid. The home page says "100% free. No ads, privacy trackers, time limits, or restrictions", and the premium-features page says other tools charge for premium features and "We don't" (MyBib, n.d.-b, n.d.-c). The upgrade page and the July 2026 post are newer: MyBib Plus, at "$2 per month, paid annually (so $24 per year)", backs the account up to MyBib's servers and syncs it between devices (MyBib, 2026a). Existing account holders get a year free, and there is a seven-day refund.
Everything else stays free, with one condition the upgrade page states plainly: without Plus, projects are stored in the browser, and clearing browser storage loses them. ZoteroBib works under the same condition, as EdCitation vs Zotero and ZoteroBib sets out.
EdCitation's free tools need no account and keep nothing; a free account keeps what you cite and bookmark. Pro is $8 a month and Max $24, and a year at once saves 25%, as the pricing page shows.
What did MyBib produce for a DOI, a PubMed ID and a retracted paper?
In EdCitation's test on 23 September 2026, MyBib built a correct APA 7 entry from one DOI, found nothing for a PubMed ID, and labelled a retracted paper "Credible". Best free APA citation generators in 2026 ran MyBib on another DOI, an ISBN and a web page the same day and recorded a missing article number, a book returned under a different ISBN, and an author who appears nowhere on the page cited. The three identifiers below are new, each searched without an account, in the Journal tab, in APA 7.
The DOI
For 10.5195/jmla.2024.1880, the search returned one result with a green "Credible" label, and the form opened under a notice headed "Check details": "Search results can contain incorrect information. Double-check before proceeding." Added unchanged, it read:
Fulbright, H., & Evans, C. (2024). Finding full texts in bulk: A comparison of EndNote 20 versus Zotero 6 using the University of York's subscriptions. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 112(3), 214–224. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1880
Crossref's record gives the same authors, volume, issue and pages, and the entry follows the APA rule as our generators guide read it the same day: sentence case, the issue number and the DOI in https form. Fulbright and Evans (2024) is a real paper, cited correctly.
The PubMed ID
For 39119157, the PubMed ID of Scheinfeld and Chung (2024), the search returned "No results found" and offered "Enter manually". The search box asks for "the journal article title or DOI", and MyBib's pages do not claim to take a PubMed ID, so this is a limit, not a fault. A student with only the PubMed ID must find the DOI first or type the reference; Cite a source takes the PubMed ID directly.
The retracted paper
For 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0, the search returned one result, titled "RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children", credited to "Andrew Wakefield · 1998", with the same green "Credible" label, whose tooltip called it "an ideal source to cite from". The form listed one author, and its preview began "Wakefield, A. (1998). RETRACTED".
Two things are wrong, and neither is a matter of style. Crossref's record for that DOI lists thirteen authors and carries a retraction notice dated 6 February 2010 (Crossref, n.d.); PubMed's record 9500320 is typed "Retracted Publication", and The Lancet withdrew the paper in full (The Editors of The Lancet, 2010). The word RETRACTED is in MyBib's result only because the publisher put it in the record's title; MyBib added no warning of its own and called the paper credible. A retracted paper whose publisher had not renamed it would give no sign at all. Verify references flags a retracted paper even when every detail of the entry is right, as retracted papers in your reference list explains.
Three identifiers on one day are a worked example, not a scorecard.
Does either tool show advertising?
MyBib shows none and says it never will; EdCitation sells labelled placements that never sit inside a result. MyBib's home page promises no ads or privacy trackers, and its July 2026 post says "There will definitely be no ads on MyBib, ever" (MyBib, 2026a).
EdCitation's partners page sets out what it sells: a card beside a guide, the top shelf of the Library, or one card in the dashboard. Every paid placement carries the word "Sponsored" and the advertiser's name, a page carries at most one, and search results, citations, reference checks and every verdict a tool gives cannot be bought. No advertiser is given a reader's name, email, work or searches. A reader who wants no sponsored card at all has that on MyBib, not on EdCitation.
How do I use MyBib and EdCitation together?
Keep the term's list in MyBib, and check every reference against the record before anyone else reads the paper.
- Build the list in MyBib as you read, by DOI or ISBN where you have one, or with the extension on the page.
- For a source you have only as a PubMed ID, use Cite a source, then add the entry to MyBib by hand.
- Keep the project safe. Without MyBib Plus the list lives in your browser's storage, so do not clear it, and download the list to Word when a paper is done.
- Before submission, upload the finished paper to Verify references. Rebuild any entry that reads "check this", replace any that is not found, and take a retraction flag seriously.
- Check the brief with Check your paper, which turns the assignment's instructions into a checklist.
Citation generator, reference manager or reference checker? explains the three kinds of tool.
Quick questions
Is MyBib accurate?
For a journal article with a DOI, MyBib built a correct APA 7 entry in EdCitation's test on 23 September 2026. On other sources the same day it left out an article number, returned a book under a different ISBN and credited a web page to an author who is not on it. Its own form says to double-check.
Does MyBib check that a reference is real?
No. MyBib's pages describe building and formatting references, not looking an entry up to see whether it exists. EdCitation's Verify references does, free with no account.
Does MyBib warn about retracted papers?
Not in our test. It returned a paper The Lancet retracted in 2010 with a "Credible" label; the word RETRACTED appeared only because the publisher had put it in the title. EdCitation screens every published work against the Retraction Watch database.
Is MyBib free?
Yes. It works without an account or payment and shows no advertising. MyBib Plus, $24 a year, adds cloud backup and sync between devices; without it the list is kept in the browser.
Can EdCitation replace MyBib?
No. EdCitation offers six styles to MyBib's 9,000 and more, has no browser extension and exports no Word, Google Docs or BibTeX file. It builds a reference from the record, screens it for retraction, verifies a finished list and checks a paper against its brief.
References
- Crossref. (n.d.). Metadata record for 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0
- The Editors of The Lancet. (2010). Retraction: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 375(9713), 445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-4
- Fulbright, H. A., & Evans, C. (2024). Finding full texts in bulk: A comparison of EndNote 20 versus Zotero 6 using the University of York's subscriptions. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 112(3), 214–224. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1880
- MyBib. (n.d.-a). Chicago citation generator. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from https://www.mybib.com/tools/chicago-citation-generator
- MyBib. (n.d.-b). MyBib: A new free APA, Harvard and MLA citation generator. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from https://www.mybib.com/
- MyBib. (n.d.-c). Premium features. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from https://www.mybib.com/premium-features
- MyBib. (n.d.-d). Upgrade to MyBib Plus. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from https://www.mybib.com/upgrade
- MyBib. (2019, January 28). New feature: Invite others to your bibs. MyBib Blog. https://www.mybib.com/blog/share-your-bibliographies
- MyBib. (2021, August 12). New style: We're ready for MLA 9. MyBib Blog. https://www.mybib.com/blog/were-ready-for-mla-9
- MyBib. (2026a, July 5). MyBib: It's time for an upgrade. MyBib Blog. https://www.mybib.com/blog/a-2026-update
- MyBib. (2026b, September 18). MyBib: Free citation generator (Version 1.2.10) [Browser extension]. Chrome Web Store. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/mybib-free-citation-gener/phidhnmbkbkbkbknhldmpmnacgicphkf
- National Library of Medicine. (n.d.). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children (PMID 9500320). PubMed. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9500320/
- Scheinfeld, L., & Chung, S. (2024). MEDLINE citation tool accuracy: An analysis in two platforms. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 112(2), 133–139. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1718