ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Building better citation practices in public health research: Practical considerations for student researchers, from source discovery to crafting and positioning claims.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Discovering, selecting, and citing sources to craft claims is fundamental to public health research and writing. Sources influence our research questions, shape our methodological approaches, connect our work to the broader public health literature, and affect how successfully our writing persuades readers that our research is valuable and that our arguments are sound. Despite the importance of source and citation practices to successful scientific writing, many student researchers receive limited or no formal training on these practices, particularly on drawing from sources to build persuasive arguments. Without specific training, many student researchers struggle to use sources effectively and often encounter pitfalls such as citation bias, quotation errors, and academic plagiarism. In this article, we provide practical considerations for effective source use and citation practices for academic papers. We highlight best practices for source discovery, from strategies for conducting comprehensive literature searches to active reading and synthesis techniques that inform academic thinking and writing. Given the rise of AI, including generative AI and AI-powered research tools, we address both the potential benefits such tools can offer and the potential pitfalls arising from uncritical use. Finally, we discuss selecting and using sources to craft and position claims, including choosing sources to support different types of claims, building credible arguments, and framing citations to reflect a stance or judgment. In this article, we offer practical introductory advice for student researchers to strengthen their source use and citation practices. Using this guidance as a starting point, student researchers can improve the quality of their publications and refine their reading, critical thinking, and writing skills which will serve them throughout their research careers.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.