A group assignment is written by several people and handed in with one reference list, and the list is where the joins show: one article entered twice, two papers cited identically, a year that changes between sections. This guide shows how to share a reference list with your group so that it reads as one: who keeps it, which style decisions to settle, how to divide the sources, and the check before hand-in.
EdCitation publishes it. Guidance from four universities, APA Style and the MLA Style Center was read on 24 September 2026, and every tool result quoted was run that day. The list lives on one free EdCitation account, which the group is invited to see by email; entries come from Cite a source, and the merged paper goes through Verify references. Collusion, group marks and merging Word files are in our group project guide; this one stays with the list.
What do universities ask of a group's reference list?
That every member answers for all of it, and that the work names everyone who wrote it.
Every member answers for the whole list
The University of Rochester (n.d.) gives instructors a model statement for a group report: each student is "responsible for the academic integrity of the entire report", other members' parts included, and should "verify that citations are correct". RMIT University's Learning Lab makes each team member responsible for what the group produces, warns that one member's plagiarism can have consequences for all, and suggests members review each other's references and citations (RMIT University, n.d.-b).
Reading's study advice sets the aim: a collaborative assignment should read as though one person wrote it (University of Reading, 2026). A list in two styles is the quickest sign that it did not.
Credit: names, declarations and contributions
The style sets where the names go. APA's student title page lists every author on the byline, joined by "and" for two, and by commas with "and" before the last name for three or more (American Psychological Association [APA], 2022c). An MLA Style Center handout says a group project needs a title page listing all the authors, in place of the usual heading on page 1 (Modern Language Association, 2020). That handout comes from the eighth edition, and the ninth edition's chapter could not be read (a check for robots stood in front of it), so your instructor's word wins.
Most group work also carries a signed statement. RMIT's assignment cover sheet has rows for up to six students and a declaration, signed by each, that the assessment is "my/our original work" except where sources are acknowledged (RMIT University, n.d.-a). Rochester's model statements ask for an account of each member's contribution, so the list should be able to say who read which source.
How does a group agree one citation style?
By naming the style and its edition from the brief on the first day, then writing down the few decisions inside that style where members will otherwise go their own way. Reading's guidance asks a group planning its drafts to discuss the referencing style and how everyone will record sources consistently (University of Reading, 2026). A short style sheet does that.
| Decision | What the group writes down | Why members differ | Where EdCitation does it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Style and edition | APA 7, MLA 9, Chicago 18 author-date, IEEE, Vancouver, or which Harvard | Harvard has local versions (there is no single Harvard), and editions differ | Cite a source sets all six |
| Title capitals | In APA 7, sentence case in the list even when the original used title case (APA, 2022b) | Titles pasted from journal pages arrive in title case | Cite a source sets an APA 7 title in sentence case and keeps names and initialisms; glance at any name made of ordinary words |
| Same authors, same year | A letter after the year, by title, in the entry and every citation (APA, 2020) | Each member sees only their own section | The whole-paper check flags the pair |
| An article online before its issue | One year, everywhere | One member copies the online date, another the issue's | Verify references says when an entry's year differs from the record's |
| Where each entry comes from | Its DOI, PubMed ID or ISBN, never retyped | A retyped entry is a second version of the same source | Cite a source, from the identifier |
| Names and years in citations | Exactly as in the entry (APA, 2022a) | A citation written before its entry was corrected | The whole-paper check matches them |
How should a group divide its sources?
By the part each member writes, with one rule that does not bend: whoever cites a source has read it. APA's basic principles of citation say to cite only works you have read (APA, 2022a), and in group work that rule is the easiest to break, because a teammate's summary is sitting in the shared notes.
Three ways to split the writing
Reading describes three broad approaches to writing together (University of Reading, 2026), and each changes who owns a source:
- Each member writes a section. The obvious split, and the one Reading warns can sound disjointed. Each member finds, reads and cites their own section's sources.
- Everyone writes in one document. Ownership goes by source rather than section: whoever adds a source to the list has read it.
- One member writes and the others gather. The writer reads each source before citing it, or the member who read it drafts that sentence.
Edinburgh's Study Hub suggests sharing tasks fairly, such as a question each, or some members on data analysis while the rest research and write (University of Edinburgh, 2025).
One keeper, and a tag for each section
One member keeps the shared list. The others send the keeper the DOI or ISBN of each source they have read; the keeper adds it and tags it with the section it supports, two tags for a source used twice. Before sending a source, a member searches the list for it, and that one habit prevents most duplicate references.
Each member finds their own part's sources. Find sources covers about 300 million published works and takes either a topic or the claim a sentence must support, with filters for the kind of source, the years and open access. Our search for screen time adolescent well-being, kept to review articles from 2019 onwards, returned 22,249 works, led by a 2019 systematic review of reviews in BMJ Open: a start for the background, while the method's author searches their own claim.
How do duplicates and mismatched entries get into a shared list?
In three ways: two members find one source separately, two members copy its details from different pages, or two sections cite different works by the same authors from the same year. A worked example built from real records on 24 September 2026 shows each: a group report on screen time and adolescent well-being, in APA 7, with three members writing a section each.
Two papers, one citation
The introduction cites Orben and Przybylski's Nature Human Behaviour paper on digital technology use; the method cites the same authors' Psychological Science paper on time-use diaries. Built from their DOIs in Cite a source, both came back with the same in-text citation:
(Orben & Przybylski, 2019)
Together, a reader cannot tell them apart. APA gives works with identical authors and year a lowercase letter after the year, assigned in title order, in the citation as well as the entry (APA, 2020). Titles are ordered ignoring a leading "a", "an" or "the" (McAdoo, 2022), so "The association between adolescent well-being…" files under "association" and takes 2019a, and "Screens, teens…" takes 2019b; sorting by "The" would reverse them. Our own list below carries those letters; Cite a source had already set the Psychological Science title, which its record holds in title case, in sentence case.
One paper, two years
The introduction also cites a paper by Twenge and three colleagues in Clinical Psychological Science. Its Crossref record dates it 14 November 2017, when it appeared online, and places it in volume 6, issue 1, of January 2018. Built from the DOI in APA, the entry came back dated 2017; the member who copied the issue's page wrote 2018, in Harvard. Pasted into Verify references together, the first came back verified and the second "check this", naming the line it repeats:
This is the same work as entry 4. A reference list gives each work once.
Two lines, one record: one source. APA's page on reference elements says an advance online publication takes the year it appeared online (APA, 2025); what to use once the article is in an issue is not on APA's public pages, and the manual is paywalled. So the group picks one year and uses it in the entry that survives and in every citation of it.
One source in two styles
The Harvard line also put "pp." before its page range, which APA does not use for journal articles, and the whole-paper check below flagged it. A second style shows in small marks: "and" where APA has "&", single quotation marks round an article title, "Available at:" before the link, all three present in the Harvard entries Cite a source built for these records.
How do you check the merged list before submission?
Twice: each entry against its record, then the whole merged paper, so every citation meets its entry. Then every member reads all of it, as Rochester and RMIT expect.
- Freeze the list. Only the keeper changes it now, announcing each change.
- Paste the list into Verify references. Each line is marked verified, doubtful ("check this") or not found, and a retracted paper is flagged; a line that could not be checked says so rather than counting as not found. Where two lines are one work, it names the earlier; keep one.
- Upload the merged paper to Verify references. Every citation in the text is paired with its entry, and every entry with a citation, free and with no account.
- Fix every finding twice, in the entry and in each citation of it.
- Look for an entry set in a style of its own. None should be, unless the brief asks for it.
- Every member reads the whole paper and list, not just their section.
- Paste the list in from the shared list, with its italics, or download it as a Word document.
What the whole-paper check found
The example went in as a Word file: three short sections and the five-line merged list, with the Orben citations unlettered, the Twenge paper cited as 2018, a citation to a book nobody listed, and a review listed but never cited. The check counted 4 in-text citations, 5 entries, 1 orphan citation and 2 uncited entries, verified four entries against their records, and marked the fifth "check this" as the same work as the fourth.
| What the check reported | What it meant for the group |
|---|---|
| In-text citation "Haidt, 2024" has no entry in the reference list | A member cited a book that never reached the list |
| Reference "Odgers, C. L., & Jensen, M. R. (2020)…" is never cited in the text | A source was listed, and its sentence later cut |
| Two entries share first author and year without a/b suffixes | The Orben pair needs its letters |
| Reference "Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2017)…" is never cited in the text | The duplicate: every citation pointed at the 2018 Harvard line |
| "pp." before journal pages | The one entry still in Harvard |
| No italics anywhere in the reference list | Our test file was plain text; a list pasted from EdCitation keeps its italics |
The duplicate is the lesson. The check named the Harvard line as the same work as the APA one, and called the APA entry never cited, because the text cited the other. Keep one entry, in the group's style, and point every citation at it. In-text citations that do not match the reference list covers the other mismatches.
How does EdCitation keep one reference list for a group?
EdCitation is the best tool for a group's reference list, because every entry is looked up in the publisher's record rather than written: two members who add one source get the same entry, and a line typed by hand is checked against the record. The worked example shows both: two DOIs gave the two Orben entries in identical form, and the Twenge line copied from a journal page was matched to its record with the reason its year differed. A chatbot cannot do that; it writes a reference instead of finding one.
- One list, shared. A free account keeps reference lists and a reading list, saved to the account. The Team page invites people by email to see either list or both, and each creates a free account to open it; Share, beside one reference, shares just that one. The keeper adds and corrects entries while the others see the list.
- Tags, styles, exports. Each reference can carry tags such as "Method", and the list filters to one tag. The list takes the group's style, and any one reference can take its own. It copies with its italics, or downloads as a Word document, BibTeX or RIS.
- Entries from the record. Cite a source takes a DOI, PubMed ID, ISBN, title or web address, sets the entry in any of the six styles, and warns when the work has been retracted. Neither it nor Verify references costs anything or asks for an account.
In the dashboard, Pro ($8 a month) adds References from a file, the reference and citation check on an uploaded paper with what changed since the last run, and Mechanics QA, which checks formatting against the style and finds comments and tracked changes left in the file. Max ($24 a month) brings Theoretics QA, a judgement of the finished paper against the brief's own instructions that rewrites nothing (Pricing). EdCitation writes no part of the report.
When the module ends, the list stays on the keeper's account; keeping your references from course to course shows how each member keeps their own, and a tutor sharing a list with a class will find a reading list for a whole class or cohort closer to the job.
Quick questions
Who should keep a group's shared reference list?
One member, chosen on the first day, who adds every source, corrects entries and decides when two lines are one source. The others send the keeper each source's DOI or ISBN and search the list first.
Can everyone in the group edit the list in EdCitation?
The Team page invites the group by email to see the keeper's reference list, each member creating a free account. The keeper adds and corrects entries; the others build theirs with Cite a source and send them to the keeper.
What do we do when two sources have the same author and year?
Add a lowercase letter after the year, in title order ignoring a leading "a", "an" or "the", and put the same letter in every citation: (Orben & Przybylski, 2019a) and (Orben & Przybylski, 2019b).
Is every member responsible for another member's references?
Usually, yes. Rochester's model statement makes each student responsible for the academic integrity of the whole report, and RMIT warns that one member's plagiarism can have consequences for all.
How do we check the group's references before submission?
Paste the merged list into Verify references to check each entry against its record, then upload the merged paper so every citation is matched to the list. Both are free with no account.
References
- American Psychological Association. (2020). Citing works with the same author and date. APA Style. https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/citations/basic-principles/same-year-author
- American Psychological Association. (2022a, July). Basic principles of citation. APA Style. https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/citations/basic-principles
- American Psychological Association. (2022b, July). Sentence case capitalization. APA Style. https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/capitalization/sentence-case
- American Psychological Association. (2022c, July). Title page setup. APA Style. https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/paper-format/title-page
- American Psychological Association. (2025, October). Elements of reference list entries. APA Style. https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references/elements-list-entry
- McAdoo, T. (2022, February 22). How to alphabetize "a," "an," and "the" in APA Style references. APA Style Blog. https://apastyle.apa.org/blog/alphabetize-nonsignificant-words
- Modern Language Association. (2020). Formatting a research paper [Handout]. MLA Style Center. https://style.mla.org/app/uploads/sites/3/2020/12/Formatting-a-Research-Paper_v3_-The-MLA-Style-Center.pdf
- Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019a). The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(2), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0506-1
- Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019b). Screens, teens, and psychological well-being: Evidence from three time-use-diary studies. Psychological Science, 30(5), 682–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619830329
- RMIT University. (n.d.-a). Assignment cover sheet for use when submitting work for assessment [Form]. Retrieved 24 September 2026, from https://www.rmit.edu.au/content/dam/rmit/au/en/students/documents/my-course/assessment-results/assignment-cover-sheet.pdf
- RMIT University. (n.d.-b). Group work and academic integrity. Learning Lab. Retrieved 24 September 2026, from https://learninglab.rmit.edu.au/university-essentials/acting-academic-integrity/group-work-and-academic-integrity
- University of Edinburgh. (2025, January 16). Managing group projects. Study Hub Blog. https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/studyhub/2025/01/16/managing-group-projects-2/
- University of Reading. (2026, September 4). Collaborative writing. Effective group work. https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/c.php?g=521404&p=5252712
- University of Rochester. (n.d.). Group project guidelines. Academic Honesty Policy. Retrieved 24 September 2026, from https://www.rochester.edu/college/honesty/policy/group-projects.html