APA 5th - completely wrong bibliography


I’m using X5 for the first time on a loaned laptop so I’ve had to partially rebuild a library for a paper I’m writing.

Unfortunately, ALL APA formats in this version of X5 do not produce proper bibliographies.  The in-text citations are correct, but the bibliography is populated with a ton of extraneous information.

The most common extra information is: 

"Comparative Study

Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t"

This phrase (or one very similar) gets appended to each citation.  Really, REALLY frustrating. I won’t have my own laptop for a few weeks, so I’m stucking using X5 until then.

I’ve switched up the styles and APA is the only style that shows this extra info.

Any help please?

EDIT: So the extra information that is added is the “Type of Article” field for each citation. So frustrating.

SOLUTION: So for some reason, Type of Article was included in the APA format for Journal article. Simply removed this extra portion of the formatting syntax and all is correct.


Author. (Year). Title|. [Type of Article]|. Journal|, Volume|(Issue)|, Pages|.


Author. (Year). Title|. Journal|, Volume|(Issue)|, Pages|.

Not sure if an X5 glitch or what, but incredibly bothersome at first! Easy fix though.

1 Like

Yes, I think that a number of output styles have new “fields” included that mess up routine bibliography generation.  I just had to delete the DOI from a Nature style that was really messing up due to the fact that many of our downloaded records have two DOIs with a carriage return. 

“Type of Article” is a correct and proper field for the APA style and is meant to be used in special cases to identify a unique characteristic of the reference in question. For example, a reference may be categorized as a “Journal Article” (per EndNote’s reference templates) but may actually be a book review or an editorial commentary.  So to distinguish these entries, their respective bibliography entry would include type of article information as: [Book review] or [Editorial commentary].

The problem, however, is that the database providers are incorrectly using the Type of Article field. For example, exported references now indiscriminately include the description “Journal Article” so the field is now rendered meaningless. (How useful is it to have every journal article listed in a bibiography labeled “Journal Article”?)

Deleting the field from the output style’s template is an option.  However, since I still use the field to identify unique characteristics about a reference, I changed the field name in both the reference templates and output style templates to: Article Type.  This enables incorporating the field as needed but without incorporating useless info from the database providers.