Why the difference for the same citation

Support
#1

Muniaraj M, Rajamannar V. Impact of SA 14-14-2 vaccination on the occurrence of Japanese encephalitis in India. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 2019;15:834–40. This is how endnote quotes the citation where as

Muniaraj M, Rajamannar V. Impact of SA 14-14-2 vaccination on the occurrence of Japanese encephalitis in India. Hum Vaccin Immunother [Internet] 2019; 15:834–40. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2018.1564435. This is how paperpile quotes, why the difference and which one is correct, how do i decide? Both from full text pubmed. Check the journal name in both.

#2

Which citation style are you using? Is it the same in both EndNote and Paperpile? Let us know.

#3

I am using the citation style for the Journal Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics (Both same used in paperpile and endnote). This is what i get. Its confusing. Also the journal style guidelines mentions the Journal name in refernce to be in Italics and title of the Article in sentence case, both missing when paperpile is used. Also whis is that for some citations [Internet] in parnethesis is seen, even for Journal articles

#4

Thanks for the clarification - I see what you mean and think the difference might be due to source provenance. There’s an option to ‘Always include DOIs and URLs’ in the citation style change dialog…

image
image688×764 68.1 KB

… which, once unticked, results in a format similar to the one you mention getting on EndNote (except for the abbreviated journal title)

image
image1020×289 35.9 KB

This means that the [Internet] and URL bits are added for online sources. Our styles come from online repository CSL; checking the Hum Vaccin Imm page there suggests formatting is correct according to the style code. CSL is community-based and regularly updated but not infallible, so that could be erroneous or outdated. Styles can be modified using their online editor, available at editor.citationstyles.org

Are these the journal style guidelines you’re following? The reference guide that points to speaks of Council of Science Editors (CSE) citation-sequence style, so perhaps using that one could be a more suitable alternative?

#5

thanks for the awesome information.

#6

thanks my issue has been fixed.