Count how often each author or lab appears in your bibliography and spot over-reliance. Free, no sign-up.
What this tool does
Every field has a few dominant labs, and it is easy to cite them for everything without noticing. That is not misconduct — but a literature review that leans on one group for every claim is fragile, because one group’s methods and assumptions carry the whole argument. This tracker counts author and lab mentions across your pasted bibliography and flags any name above a share you set, so you can decide deliberately whether the concentration is justified.
Why it matters
Good citations do quiet work. They let a reader find every source you used, they show that your argument rests on real evidence rather than memory, and they protect you: a clean reference list is much harder to challenge than a vague one. Most marks lost on referencing are not lost on difficult sources. They are lost on small, repeated slips — a missing year, a swapped initial, a title in the wrong case — that a quick tool pass catches before submission.
How to use it
- Paste your bibliography, one entry per line, author first.
- Set the flag threshold (percent).
- Read the frequency table and flags.
Worked example
Ten entries where Patel appears in six: Patel = 60%, flagged at a 30% threshold. The flag is a prompt to check whether other groups studied the same question — not proof of bias by itself.
Tips for good results
Author counts and lab counts answer different questions. Run both views before concluding anything.
Work from the source itself, not from another paper’s copy of it. And keep one style for the whole list: a single mixed entry undermines an otherwise perfect bibliography.
Honest limits
The tracker counts first-author strings as typed; spelling variants of one name count separately. It measures concentration only — it cannot judge whether citing one lab heavily is justified, and it never judges the quality of the cited work.
Common mistakes to avoid
Common mistakes to avoid: copying a reference from another paper without checking it against the original, trusting a PDF filename for the title or year, and mixing two styles in one list. Each of these looks harmless alone and careless together. Run the tool, read its output once, and compare it with the source itself before you paste it into your document.
Before you submit
Run through this short check before you submit: is every author name spelled as it appears on the source, is every year present and correct, and does every in-text citation have a matching entry in your reference list? Read the list once from top to bottom rather than skimming it. Most referencing errors are found in that single slow read, and fixing them there is far cheaper than fixing them after a reviewer finds them. If one entry still looks odd after that read, check it against the original source before you change anything else.
Frequently asked questions
Is this tool really free?
Yes. It runs in your browser on this page, with no account and no payment. Nothing you paste leaves your computer.
Do I still need to check the result?
Yes, once. Tools apply rules; they cannot verify facts about your source. Compare the output with the source itself before submitting.
Can I use the output in my paper?
Yes. The output is a formatted reference or analysis for your own work. Keep the source’s facts accurate and the formatting consistent across your list.
What if the tool’s output differs from my style guide?
Trust the style guide. Tools encode the common rules of a style; your university or journal’s own sheet wins every disagreement. Use the tool to do the routine work, then apply the local rule where it differs.
Also available in Spanish: Rastreador de Sesgo de Citas – Frecuencia de Autores y Laboratorios en Bibliografías Gratis.