An annotated bibliography is a literature review's early draft — a structured record of what you read, what it argues, whether you trust it, and how it fits the paper you are writing. This annotated bibliography template gives you a reusable entry block with both APA 7 and MLA 9 citation formats, plus a three-part annotation structure (summary, evaluation, relevance) that turns each entry into a working research note. Two fully worked example entries show what strong annotations look like — one in APA from a psychology study, one in MLA from a literary analysis. Copy the block, duplicate it per source, and you have a bibliography that actually supports the paper that follows.
PaperDraft is a writing assistant, not a paper generator — the template is free. The draft is your starting point, not your submission. You are responsible for editing, verifying sources, and following your school's academic integrity policy.
What this template includes
- A reusable entry block with citation slots for APA 7 and MLA 9
- A three-part annotation structure — Summary, Evaluation, Relevance — with sentence targets for each
- Target word count per annotation (100–200 words)
- Two fully worked example entries, one in APA and one in MLA
- Formatting guidance for title, hanging indent, and alphabetical ordering
- A note on grouped or thematic annotated bibliographies for assignments that require them
Annotated bibliography template — copy the structure
Copy the entry block below once per source. Order all entries alphabetically by the first author's surname. Delete the italic guidance before submission.
Title Block
Annotated Bibliography: [Paper topic or research question]
[Your name] [Course code and section] [Instructor name] [Date]
Entry block (copy once per source)
Citation (APA 7): [Author, A. A., and Author, B. B. (Year). Title of article. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), page–page. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/xxxxx]
Citation (MLA 9): [Author First Last, and First Last. "Title of Article." Journal Name, vol. X, no. Y, Year, pp. XX–XX. Database, https://doi.org/10.xxxx/xxxxx.]
Annotation (100–200 words):
[Summary — 2 sentences: State the source's main argument or finding and the scope of the study, including method and sample if empirical.]
[Evaluation — 2–3 sentences: Assess credibility (author credentials, peer review), method rigor, any bias, and the source's standing in its field.]
[Relevance — 1–2 sentences: Explain specifically how this source fits YOUR paper's argument or research question. What will you use it for?]
Example entry 1 (APA 7)
Citation (APA 7): Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., and Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
Annotation (148 words):
Summary: The authors introduce "grit" as a personality construct defined by perseverance and passion for long-term goals, and report six studies (N ranging from 139 to 1545) showing grit predicts educational attainment, GPA at an elite university, and retention at West Point beyond what IQ and conscientiousness predict.
Evaluation: The paper is highly cited and peer-reviewed in a top personality journal, and the authors include Duckworth, whose subsequent program of research has become the reference base for the construct. The method is a mix of cross-sectional and longitudinal designs, which is a strength; the main limitation acknowledged in later literature is that grit correlates strongly with conscientiousness, raising questions about discriminant validity. The West Point sample also raises external validity questions.
Relevance: This is the foundational citation for the grit construct and will ground the definition section of my paper, with the conscientiousness-overlap critique framing the limitations section.
Example entry 2 (MLA 9)
Citation (MLA 9): Felski, Rita. "Context Stinks!" New Literary History, vol. 42, no. 4, 2011, pp. 573–591. Project MUSE, muse.jhu.edu/article/466984.
Annotation (142 words):
Summary: Felski argues against the dominant contextualist approach in literary studies, contending that treating texts as windows onto their historical moment reduces literature to symptom and forecloses aesthetic and affective engagement. She proposes instead a mode of reading attentive to what texts do across time — how they resonate, transport, and affect readers beyond their original context.
Evaluation: Felski is a prominent voice in contemporary theory, and the essay appeared in a leading humanities journal. The argument is polemical by design, which is a rhetorical strength and an analytic limitation — she caricatures contextualist reading to sharpen the contrast. The piece has been widely cited and debated since 2011, including critical responses in the same journal.
Relevance: This grounds my paper's framing of post-critique as an alternative to historicist reading, and the Felski-vs-contextualism contrast structures my second section.
Notes on format
- Alphabetical order. Both APA and MLA order annotated bibliographies alphabetically by the first author's surname. Do not group by theme unless the assignment explicitly requires it.
- Hanging indent. First line of each citation flush left; subsequent lines indented 0.5 inches. Annotations are indented as a block below the citation.
- Line spacing. Double-space the citation and the annotation in APA. MLA also double-spaces, including between entries.
- Title of the document. APA: "Annotated Bibliography" centered and bold. MLA: "Annotated Bibliography" centered, title case, no bold.
How to use this template
1. Choose your citation style before drafting
APA 7 is standard for psychology, education, and most social sciences. MLA 9 is standard for literature, language, and humanities. Confirm the style with your instructor before filling the template — switching styles across a 10-entry bibliography is a multi-hour revision. For APA specifics see our APA citation guide.
2. Read the source in full before annotating
An annotation is an informed judgment, not a summary of the abstract. Read the source closely enough to identify its argument, method, and limits. Annotations written from skimmed abstracts sound generic and are easy for graders to spot.
3. Write the summary in two sentences
The Summary section states the source's main argument or finding and the scope of the work. Two sentences. If you cannot summarize the source in two sentences, your grip on it is too loose — reread before annotating.
4. Evaluate credibility, bias, and method
The Evaluation section is where the annotation earns its keep. Name the author's credentials, the publication's peer-review status, the method used (if empirical), and any bias you detect. Two to three sentences. Generic praise ("well-researched") does not count.
5. Connect the source to your paper
The Relevance section is one or two sentences naming specifically how the source fits your paper's argument or research question. "I will use this to ground the definition section and frame the limitations discussion" is specific. "Relevant to my topic" is not.
6. Order entries alphabetically
Both APA and MLA order annotated bibliographies alphabetically by the first author's surname. Do not group by theme unless the assignment explicitly requires grouping — in that case, use themed subheadings and alphabetize within each group.
7. Verify every citation
Open each source and match the author spelling, year, page numbers, issue, and DOI element by element. Bibliography errors are the clearest signal of rushed work and the easiest points to lose. For the broader writing process see how to write an annotated bibliography.
Section-by-section guide
Title block
"Annotated Bibliography" as the document title. Include your name, course, instructor, and date. APA centers and bolds the title; MLA uses title case without bold. Do not abbreviate the title.
Citation line
The full bibliographic entry in your chosen style. Hanging indent, with every element — author, year, title, source, DOI — verified against the original. Citation formatting is the first thing graders check.
Summary (2 sentences)
State the source's central argument or finding and the scope of the work. For empirical sources include method and sample size (use "N equals 200" rather than the less-than symbol followed by a digit). Two sentences.
Evaluation (2–3 sentences)
Assess credibility, method rigor, bias, and the source's standing in its field. Name specifics — author credentials, peer review, sample limitations, rhetorical strategy. This is where you demonstrate scholarly judgment.
Relevance (1–2 sentences)
Name how the source fits YOUR paper's argument or research question. Be specific about which section or claim the source will support. Without Relevance, the annotation is descriptive but not working research.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Summarizing the abstract instead of the source. Abstracts flatten findings into marketing prose. Read the source and summarize the argument, not the abstract's framing.
- Generic evaluation. "The author is an expert and the article is well-researched" is not evaluation. Name the credentials, the peer-review status, the method, and the limits.
- Missing relevance. An annotation without a Relevance sentence is an isolated note. Always pivot to how the source serves your paper.
- Citation errors at scale. Each incorrect DOI or misspelled author compounds. Verify every entry — the bibliography is where graders check first. This intersects with academic integrity because misattribution misleads readers; see our academic responsibility guide.
- Inconsistent style. Mixing APA and MLA formatting across entries signals a bibliography assembled from a citation generator without verification. Pick one style and apply it uniformly.
Frequently asked questions
Is using this annotated bibliography template plagiarism?
No. A structural template — the citation slot, the three-part annotation, the word-count guidance — is not copyrightable and not plagiarism. The annotation structure (summary, evaluation, relevance) is a shared scholarly convention. What must be yours is the reading, the judgment, and the writing in each annotation. Fill the template with your own analysis of each source and you are on solid ground.
Should I use APA or MLA for my annotated bibliography?
Discipline-dependent. APA 7 for psychology, education, and most social sciences. MLA 9 for literature, language, and humanities. History and some humanities fields use Chicago. Medical disciplines use Vancouver or AMA. Confirm with your instructor before starting. See our APA citation guide for 7th-edition specifics.
How long should each annotation be?
100 to 200 words is the standard target and what this template assumes. Some assignments require longer "critical" annotations of 250 to 400 words; others ask for shorter "descriptive" annotations under 100 words. Check the brief.
How many sources should an annotated bibliography include?
Assignment-dependent. A short undergraduate annotated bibliography might list 5 to 10 sources. A graduate-level version preparing a literature review could list 20 to 40. The brief sets the target.
Should I group entries by theme?
Only if the assignment requires grouping. The default in both APA and MLA is alphabetical by first-author surname. If your instructor asks for a thematic structure, use themed subheadings and alphabetize within each theme.
Can I use AI to help draft annotations?
With disclosure, some programs allow AI for summary scaffolding — but Evaluation and Relevance require your scholarly judgment and cannot be outsourced. Every citation must be verified against the original source. Disclose use per your course policy. See our AI disclosure guide.