Launch draft · Fictional demo byline · Human editorial review required.
A plausible reference is only a starting point
To check an AI-generated citation, verify that the source exists, match its bibliographic details and read the passage that is supposed to support the claim. These are three different checks. A real paper can still be attached to the wrong statement.
Imagine a draft saying that a particular work habit doubles productivity. Below it sits a polished reference with an author, journal and year. Before repeating the claim, ask what evidence would let another reader reconstruct it. Formatting alone answers none of those questions.
Make a claim-and-source record
Copy the exact statement into a small table. Beside it, record the suggested source, a verified link and your decision: supports, partly supports, contradicts or not verified. This turns an impression of credibility into a check another editor can repeat.
Keep the claim narrow. “Participants completed one task faster in this experiment” and “this tool makes everyone more productive” are not interchangeable. If the source supports the first sentence, rewriting it as the second adds a conclusion of your own.
Find the original publication
Search the exact title and an author’s surname. Prefer the publisher, institution or official repository over a page that merely repeats the citation. NIST identifies confidently presented false content as a generative-AI risk; the practical response is independent verification, not asking the same model whether it is certain.
Crossref’s metadata search can help locate records by title, author or DOI. Compare the result with the proposed citation rather than treating any search match as confirmation. Not every legitimate source has a DOI, so absence from one database is not proof that a work is fabricated.
Match the details, then read the evidence
Check title, authors, publication year and journal or publisher. A working DOI link should resolve to the work being cited. If it resolves to a different article, keep searching or remove the reference.
Next read the relevant passage. Note who or what was studied, the conditions, the measured outcome and the limitations. An abstract may help locate a result, but it may not support all the detail in a draft. If the necessary text is inaccessible, label the claim unverified rather than implying that you read it.
Use a simple decision table
| Finding | Editorial action |
|---|---|
| Source cannot be located | Remove the citation or hold the claim for further research. |
| Source exists; claim is too broad | Rewrite the claim to match the evidence. |
| Source contradicts the draft | Correct the draft and examine how the error arose. |
| Source and passage both match | Record the passage and retain the reference. |
This is a proposed editorial worksheet, not a tested detection system. Its value is making your reasoning visible. It cannot replace subject knowledge when interpreting a technical study.
Finish with a human review
For a classroom note, your own source check may be enough. For material affecting health, money, safety or legal rights, involve an appropriately qualified reviewer. A verified citation does not make an unqualified interpretation reliable.
Before sharing, open every final link once more, remove unsupported statements and identify any unresolved uncertainty. Save your notes beside the draft. The goal is not a long reference list; it is a clear connection between what you say and what the evidence actually establishes.
Sources & references
- NIST — AI Risk Management Framework and Generative AI Profile — accessed September 22, 2026.
- Crossref — Metadata Search — accessed September 22, 2026.
Continue reading
How we check facts · Research and testing methods · Practical guides