How to check AI-generated citations and the claims they support

A usable citation passes two checks: the source exists with the stated bibliographic details, and its content supports the claim you want to make. Complete both checks before an AI-suggested reference enters your manuscript.

Download the research workflow templates, a ZIP containing editable CSV logs for evidence extraction, citation checking, qualitative coding review, and analysis checks. Open the files in your spreadsheet or research workspace.

This workflow is for researchers, students, and supervisors reviewing an AI-assisted draft. You need the draft, access to scholarly search or your library, and a simple verification log. It also works for references suggested by a colleague or discovered in a secondary summary.

Separate the claim from the reference

Copy the sentence you intend to support into a log. Give it a claim ID. In adjacent fields, record the proposed citation, the DOI or URL, the verified source, the relevant passage and locator, your decision, and the checking date.

For example, a draft might say: “AI improves the quality of all qualitative analysis.” Even before searching, the word “all” sets a very broad evidentiary burden. Your task is to decide what the source establishes and rewrite the sentence to match that scope.

Find the bibliographic record independently

Search the exact title, then combinations of author names and distinctive title terms. Crossref supports bibliographic lookup; its Simple Text Query can help match references to DOIs. Multiple possible matches require inspection.

Compare the title, authors, venue, year, volume or article number, and DOI with the publisher's record. Distinguish a preprint from a later journal article. Different years can reflect online publication and issue assignment, so investigate a mismatch before declaring a source fabricated.

If you cannot find a record, keep the reference unresolved. Broaden the search to your library catalogue, the authors' institutional pages, or the relevant repository. Some legitimate sources have no DOI. Asking the same chatbot whether its reference is real does not provide independent verification.

Read the part that supports the claim

Open the full text when possible. Locate the relevant result, figure, table, or argument. Read enough surrounding material to understand the population, design, outcome, and limitations. An abstract may support a broad description, while a detailed numerical or methodological claim usually requires the full paper.

Check these common mismatches:

• An association is described as a causal effect.

• A result from one task is generalized to an entire discipline.

• A commentary is presented as an empirical study.

• An exploratory result is presented as a confirmed hypothesis.

• A source discusses a concern, but the draft says it demonstrated the concern experimentally.

If access is limited to the abstract, record “abstract checked, full text unavailable” and restrict the claim accordingly. Seek library access for claims that require closer checking.

Give every claim a decision

Use four practical statuses: supported, supported with narrower wording, unsupported, and unresolved. “Supported” means you have checked the relevant evidence; it does not mean the paper is beyond criticism.

For a narrower claim, write the replacement sentence in the log. For an unsupported claim, remove it or find an appropriate source. For an unresolved claim, keep it out of the final argument until you resolve the uncertainty. Check the publisher page for corrections, retractions, or version updates before final submission.

Use AI to make the checking queue

AI can help you identify sentences that need verification. Give it this bounded task:

“From this draft, list each externally verifiable claim and the citation currently attached to it. Preserve the original wording. Flag absolute language, numerical claims, causal claims, and missing citations. Do not invent references or mark a source as verified. Return a checklist for human review.”

Then compare the checklist with the original draft to catch omissions. Where you supply source text, you can also ask for candidate supporting passages; you still need to open and read them.

Finished output: every retained claim has a checked source, a traceable location, and wording proportional to the evidence. A DOI that resolves is one useful check in this process; the substantive reading completes it.

Next, build a literature-review evidence matrix, or browse the research learning paths.

Original tutorial, published 6 November 2026. Crossref documentation checked on that date.