One or two authors: (Jones, 1997) (Dunn & Diaz, 2008) |
Three or more authors: (Phipps et al., 2018)
|
Organization as author: First citation (National Institutes of Health [NIH], 2016) Subsequent citations (NIH, 2016) |
No author (for an article): Use the first word of the article in quotes. (“Economy”, 2011, pp. 3-4) No author (for a website where the content isn't in article format): (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018) |
If two authors have the same surname (use first name inital in addition to last name): This example is for a presentation.
(N. Smith, 2007, Slide 7) |
If the same information comes from multiple sources:
(Smith, 2007; Jones, 2008) or Smith (2007) and Jones (2009) concluded that… If you use different information from multiple sources in the same sentence: Smith (2007) presented data that supported the committee's opinion but Rudolfo's study (2008) came to a different conclusion. If you want to present one source as your main source, but also mention another source: (Smith, 2007; see also LeBlanc (2009) |
If you used more than one source from the same author:
(Smith, 2007; Smith, 2009) |
If you have more than one source from the same author in the same year):
(Smith, 2007a) or (Smith, 2007b)
|
No date: (Jones, n.d.) |
For republished books (not for editions): (Adler 1947/2008) |
For YouTube videos: If the producer of the film did not upload the film, you can use the YouTube channel as author and use upload date. (Crafty Student, 2018, 2:15) |
For films and videos: Use director and/or producer as author. (Bruckheimer & Scott, 1986) |
For artworks: (Picasso, 1926-1927) |
For personal communication (emails, classroom lectures, face to face interviews, online bulletin board, live speeches): (J. Wright, personal communication, February 14, 2020) Do not include a citation in the References list - simply cite in-text. |
In-text citations (or parenthetical citations) point your reader to specific entries on the References page.
Smith and Jones (2004) disputed the Committee’s conclusion that "funding the project was impractical" (p. 10).
Some researchers strongly dispute the Committee’s conclusion that "the situation improved" (Smith & Jones, 2004, p. 10).