Weigh Stale Citations by How Often Your Draft Relies on Them — Free
An old source used once in a literature review is a footnote; the same source carrying four argumentative claims is a risk. Weigh each citation’s years past your recency rule by how often the draft leans on it.
The proof surface
Citation managers organise references and check style compliance. This audits a completed draft’s reference list for sources older than the recency limit you set, weighted by how often each is cited.
Why the flat version breaks
Treating all sources as equally stale
Age matters far less for a methods paper or a primary historical source than for a current-statistics citation, and the weighting shows which sources you lean on.
Counting bibliography entries as citations
A single entry cited once is materially different from an entry cited four times, so count the in-text uses.
Replacing a source without reading the replacement
Substituting a newer paper that does not support the same claim weakens the argument further.
How to work the source recency docket
Work through the reference list and enter each cited source once, using the shortened form you use in the text.
Subtract the publication year from the current year using the edition you actually cited. A 2014 textbook cited in 2026 carries 12 years.
Count in-text citations, not bibliography entries. A source cited four times is doing four jobs in the argument and deserves a freshness check first.
Enter the maximum age your course, journal or supervisor accepts — many research guides suggest roughly ten years for fast-moving fields and longer for foundational work. Only sources past that line contribute a score; the docket totals the weighted exposure.
What the source recency docket replaces
| Question | Before | Visible working |
|---|---|---|
| Treating all sources as equally stale | Age matters far less for a methods paper or a primary historical source than for a current-statistics citation, and the weighting shows which sources you lean on. | Enter years since publication |
| Counting bibliography entries as citations | A single entry cited once is materially different from an entry cited four times, so count the in-text uses. | Count the times the draft cites it |
| Replacing a source without reading the replacement | Substituting a newer paper that does not support the same claim weakens the argument further. | Set the recency rule you are held to |
A local arithmetic aid replaces hand calculation, not expert review. No paid AI service is needed.
Run it on the samples, right here
FIRST-LOAD
Input is processed locally and a draft is saved automatically in this browser profile when storage is available. Reset to sample clears that draft; Pro history has its own clear button. A state link encodes your inputs in its URL: share only non-sensitive rows. Browser history, clipboard and anyone receiving the link may retain it. Optional AI use below leaves this device; it is not required.
Recency arithmetic on publication years and citation counts you supply. Not an academic-integrity finding, discipline norm or supervisor policy; confirm acceptable source ages with your supervisor, journal or department before rewriting.
Data note: Everything runs in this browser tab on the source recency docket: your cited source | years since publication | times cited in draft stays on this device, nothing is uploaded, and the reading is rebuilt only when you press run.
Go deeper: the companion app files the same reading as a clerk's docket sheet
The article demo above runs without limits. The companion app keeps a local history, exports the rows as CSV, prints the source recency docket reading, and holds your drafts on this device — one free run, then $ 4 one-time for the layer that keeps filing.
The source recency docket reading is complete for free. The optional $4 layer adds print, row CSV and the last five local reading summaries; it does not add hidden answers. Checkout is not configured yet; the article demo remains unlimited.
Open the weigh stale citations by how often your draft relies on them companionBoundary
Recency arithmetic on publication years and citation counts you supply. Not an academic-integrity finding, discipline norm or supervisor policy; confirm acceptable source ages with your supervisor, journal or department before rewriting.
What this is built on
- Method: Count in-text citations, not bibliography entries. A source cited four times is doing four jobs in the argument and deserves a freshness check first.
- All sample records are invented examples. The app does not fetch measurements, policies, files or personal records.
- Google’s official pricing page, fetched 2026-09-29, lists free-tier access including AI Studio. Optional formatting only; limits and availability can change. Free-tier content may be used to improve products. Never paste private records there.
Before: Age matters far less for a methods paper or a primary historical source than for a current-statistics citation, and the weighting shows which sources you lean on. After: the source recency docket shows the working beside each named row so the reader can change the assumption and inspect the consequence.
Optional AI formatting, not calculation
For this source recency docket, use the free AI Studio interface only if available to you, with no paid API key. Manual entry completes the same workflow for free. Supply only fictional or non-sensitive notes. Review its output against the source; never paste unresolved questions into the numeric rows.
Format my non-sensitive notes for a source recency docket. Return plain rows only: cited source | years since publication | times cited in draft. Preserve supplied quantities exactly. Do not guess missing values; list questions separately. Do not calculate or add advice. I will check every row before pasting into the local tool.
Accepted schema: cited source | years since publication | times cited in draft. No AI response is executed as code.