Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Research audits AI-assisted literature review retrieval, indicating the need for better citation traceability.
Generative AI systems increasingly mediate how students retrieve literature and generate citations, shifting methodological rigor toward the maintenance of an auditable evidence trail. This study audits the search stage of AI-assisted literature review work, focusing on retrieval performance and citation traceability rather than downstream screening or synthesis. Four widely accessible tools were compared across two retrieval postures, and Boolean queries were executed against Scopus and evaluated against a DOI-verified librarian baseline built from Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Using a canonical prompt and a bounded top-k capture rule (k = 20), each bibliographic record was evaluated for DOI traceability, DOI resolution integrity, metadata accuracy, and run-to-run drift. Records were screened through staged title/abstract and full-text eligibility review, and the final set included 37 studies after quality appraisal was 37 studies. Across sixteen audit runs, natural-language prompting frequently produced under-target yields, recurrent integrity failures, and low overlap with the librarian benchmark. Boolean translation improved run completion and increased the proportion of auditable records, but reproducibility remained unstable across repeated runs. These findings show that correctness at the record level does not ensure stability at the evidence-set level. Limitations include the bounded tool set, the search-stage focus, and the absence of downstream screening or synthesis evaluation. Retrieval posture, therefore, emerges as a practical governance lever for AI-assisted literature review workflows and supports the use of a student-facing verification checklist anchored in DOI verification and transparent protocol capture. This research received no external funding. OSF registration: Open Science Framework, 10.17605/OSF.IO/U8NHT. The manuscript reports the final included set as n = 37, states no external funding, and lists the OSF registration DOI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
León et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: