PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 18, 2026Accountability in Research13 citationsOpen Access

Hallucinated citations produced by generative artificial intelligence may constitute research misconduct when citations function as data in scholarly papers

View Full Paper
DRDavid B ResnikMHMohammad Hosseini

Key Points

  • The aim is to explore how hallucinated citations by GenAI could qualify as research misconduct under U.S. federal regulations.
  • Discussion of instances where hallucinated citations might be considered data in research papers.
  • Analysis of the implications of using AI-generated citations without verification.
  • Comparison with other types of citation inaccuracies and their classification in research misconduct.
  • Demonstrated that hallucinated citations can mislead and misrepresent research findings.
  • Indicated that poor verification practices increase the risk of data fabrication.
  • Proposed that recognizing this issue could lead to stricter guidelines for AI citation use in scholarly work.

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.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Resnik et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69ba41e04e9516ffd37a1db5https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2645390
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper