To check whether an AI-generated citation is real, locate the publication independently, compare its title and authors with the reference, and open the source to see whether it supports your sentence. A working link is only one part of the check. Keep a record of what you found before adding the reference to your draft.
This guide separates three questions: Does the work exist? Do the citation details identify that work? Does the work support this particular claim? The worksheet and hypothetical cases below help you record different answers without treating every problem as a fabricated source.
1. Preserve the reference and the sentence it is supposed to support
Copy the suggested reference into a checking document alongside the sentence that needs evidence. Keep the original version while you investigate; otherwise, a series of edits can make it difficult to tell what was wrong.
Use separate fields for title, authors, year, journal or publisher, and DOI or URL. Leave missing fields blank. An empty field is an investigation task, not an invitation to invent a page range or publication date.
Our suggested status labels are unresolved, identity confirmed, details corrected, and claim checked. These are worksheet labels, not an official standard. A reference can reach the second status while still needing substantial reading before the fourth.
2. Find the source outside the AI conversation
The University of Washington Libraries’ citation guidance recommends searching the citation directly, checking its DOI, consulting scholarly databases, and asking a librarian about uncertain results.
Start with the title in quotation marks in Google Scholar or your library search. If that fails, try a distinctive title phrase with an author surname. Open the publisher’s record or a relevant library record and compare it with the proposed reference. Record unresolved differences rather than choosing the first result with similar keywords.
If a DOI is supplied, open its DOI link and inspect the destination. Does the page identify the same work? A link to a different article does not verify the reference. A failed link also needs investigation: check for copied punctuation or a transcription error before drawing a conclusion.
A missing DOI is not, by itself, a reason to reject a source. Look for an appropriate publisher, repository, or library record. Likewise, one unsuccessful search is not proof that a work was invented. Keep the status unresolved when you cannot establish its identity.
3. Use Crossref to investigate missing or conflicting details
Crossref’s Simple Text Query documentation explains how to look up DOI matches from a reference or reference list. Enter each reference on its own line, with a blank line between references. The service can return multiple possible matches when the available details do not identify a single result.
Treat those matches as candidates to compare. Check title, author list, publication venue, and date against the source record. If two records differ, investigate whether they describe different versions, such as a preprint and a journal article, rather than silently merging their details. Record the version you actually consulted.
For a long bibliography, you can work in batches while keeping one worksheet row per reference. Do not mark the whole list checked merely because a lookup service returned links for it. The evidence still belongs to individual records and individual claims.
4. Read for the claim, not just the title
Oxford’s Bodleian Libraries distinguishes verifying a reference from evaluating an AI summary. Its guidance recommends comparing bibliographic details with the original record and checking the source’s methods, findings, and limitations.
Open the relevant passage, table, or figure. Ask whether it supports the population, comparison, and strength of claim in your sentence. A study about one setting does not automatically establish the same result everywhere. If you can access only an abstract, record that limit; do not present an unread section as checked. Seek access through your library when needed.
Once you have consulted the source, revise the sentence to match the evidence. Then handle citation formatting separately. Our guide to citing paraphrased content covers that next stage.
Worked examples: three problems that require different decisions
The following are invented checking scenarios, not reports about real publications. No names, numerical findings, or DOI strings are offered as research evidence.
| Hypothetical case | What the researcher finds | What to record and change |
|---|---|---|
| A citation is meant to support a claim about late-night library access. | The supplied DOI opens an article about laboratory scheduling, with different authors. | Record an identity mismatch. Do not attach that DOI to the proposed title. Search for the intended work independently. |
| A reference describes a student interview study. | A publisher record matches its title and authors, but the draft bibliography contains an incorrect page range. | Record the matching source and corrected field. Read the study before deciding whether its findings support the paragraph. |
| A draft claims that extended opening hours improved learning outcomes. | The located paper discusses students’ preferences about opening hours but does not measure learning outcomes. | Record that identity is confirmed but the claim is unsupported. Remove or narrow the claim, or research different evidence. |
Consider the third case more closely. Changing the sentence to “Students expressed a preference for later access” would only be justified if that accurately describes the passage you read. Adding a cautious word such as “may” to the original outcome claim would not supply the missing evidence.
If a reference remains unlocated, preserve the search notes in your working file and keep it out of the active evidence for your argument. A replacement source requires a fresh claim check. A paper sharing the same keywords may address a different question.
Copy this citation-checking worksheet
Draft sentence requiring support:
Original suggested reference:
Title and authors found in the source record:
Publisher, library, or repository record URL:
DOI, if available:
Version consulted:
Details that differ from the original reference:
Passage, page, table, or figure actually read:
What that passage supports:
What it does not establish:
Status: unresolved / identity confirmed / details corrected / claim checked
Next action and date checked:Keep the worksheet next to your source notes. When a paragraph changes, revisit the relevant row: a citation that supported an earlier sentence may not support the revised one. You can also carry these notes into a source-based paper outline so that unresolved evidence stays visible during restructuring.
Bring checked sources back into your own draft
Use a writing workspace to develop the argument after checking its evidence. In towrite.ai, you can review proposed edits and accept or reject changes to your draft. That author review does not replace opening and reading a source.
Try towrite.ai on your draft, keeping the verification worksheet available as you revise. Before retaining a changed sentence, ask whether its reference still supports the wording you have chosen.
Prepared with AI assistance for towrite.ai. The checking scenarios and worksheet are original teaching examples, not empirical findings. Source guidance was consulted on October 27, 2026. Follow your institution’s and publisher’s rules for AI use and disclosure.