ArticleAccountability in research2026
Hallucinated citations produced by generative artificial intelligence may constitute research misconduct when citations function as data in scholarly papers.
Article in Accountability in research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Teaching the Atomic Sentence Method for Source-Verified, AI-Assisted Literature Synthesis to Clinical Health Care Professionals: Single-Cohort Feasibility and Acceptability Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Citation integrity in the AI era: a focused evidence map and layered verification framework for gastroenterology and hepatology publishing.Gastroenterology report · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: from algorithmic capability to intelligent integration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Navigating artificial intelligence in qualitative research: ethical and practical considerations from concept to publication.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this article, we discuss the growing problem of hallucinated citations produced by Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in scholarly research and writing. We argue that GenAI hallucinated citations might qualify as a provable instance of research misconduct under the U.S. federal regulations when a) the researcher uses a GenAI tool to produce hallucinated (i.e., nonexistent) citations for a research document; b) the citations function as data because they directly support research findings, as in, for example, review articles or bibliometric studies; and c) the researcher demonstrates indifference to the risk of fabrication of the data (i.e. citations) because they did not check the GenAI's output for veracity and accuracy. Other types of problematic citations such as bibliometrically incorrect citations, or contextually inaccurate citations, are indicative of poor scholarship and irresponsible behavior, but do not qualify as research misconduct. Recognizing that GenAI hallucinated citations could be regarded as research misconduct in certain cases will hopefully encourage researchers to take this problem more seriously than they do now. In partnership with scientific institutions, funders and professional societies, the scholarly community should work on establishing, promoting, and enforcing standards for responsible use of AI in research, including standards pertaining to citation practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.