Editorial Standards and Referencing Methodology

This page explains how Harvard Reference Generator develops, reviews and corrects its referencing guidance.

The aim is to make editorial decisions understandable, identify the sources used to support those decisions and explain how uncertainty is handled.

Harvard referencing is an author-date approach with many institutional variants. We do not assume that one general template overrides an institution's current published rules.

General pages explain widely used conventions. University-specific pages should reflect the institution's own current guidance where that guidance is publicly available.

When researching or reviewing a format, we prefer sources in the following order:

1. The current official guide of the university, department, journal or publisher concerned.
2. Official documentation from the body that created the source, such as legislation, standards, government publications or international organisations.
3. The source itself and authoritative bibliographic metadata, such as a publisher record, DOI registration record or library catalogue.
4. Established academic-library guidance from another institution, used cautiously where the relevant style is comparable.
5. General referencing conventions where no specific authoritative rule is available.

Each source template is based on the bibliographic elements normally needed to identify and retrieve that source. Conditional rules may apply when:

• there are multiple authors;
• an organisation is the author;
• no author is available;
• no publication date is available;
• the source is online;
• an edition or version matters;
• a direct quotation requires a locator;
• a source is part of a larger work; or
• the institutional style differs from the general pattern.

Automatic lookup can save time but is not treated as unquestionable. Retrieved metadata may contain capitalisation errors, missing authors, incorrect dates, shortened titles or incomplete publication details.

Users are instructed to compare autofilled information with the original source. Where possible, the interface should make every imported field editable.

Examples are intended to demonstrate structure. They may use real public sources, adapted details or clearly illustrative information.

An example should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the source or as a claim that every institution formats it identically.

We aim to review high-use and university-specific pages periodically and when credible evidence of a change is received.

Merely changing formatting or metadata should not be presented as a substantive academic review. Material guidance changes should be supported by current, relevant evidence.

Automated systems may be used to assist with drafting, comparison, consistency checking or technical production. They must not be the final authority for a referencing rule.

Substantive guidance should be reviewed against appropriate sources before publication. Any AI-generated claim that cannot be verified should be removed or clearly qualified.

Where reputable guides disagree, we aim to:

• identify the relevant institutional context;
• avoid describing one variant as universally correct;
• explain the difference where useful; and
• direct the user to the guide that governs their work.