The research desk
How to verify AI citations: a practical checklist
Verify an AI citation in three separate steps: confirm the source exists, confirm it is the intended source, and read the passage that supports the claim. A working link or a valid DOI only resolves the first part of that problem.
Keryx ·
Written for the Keryx research workflow. Method references are linked where used; the worked examples are illustrative.
Record your checks in a free evidence matrix1. Check the source's identity
Open the cited source and compare its title, authors, year and venue with the reference in the answer. If a DOI is given, resolve it and check the publisher's record. For a preprint, record the version you examined. A later version can have different results or wording.
Crossref provides publisher-deposited bibliographic metadata that can help check the identity of many scholarly works. Its records are useful for matching a DOI to a title and authors. They are not proof that the paper supports an AI-generated sentence. If a record is missing, search the publisher or repository before deciding the citation is fabricated.
Crossref: retrieving bibliographic metadata2. Find the passage that supports the claim
Break the AI answer into claims you can check. For each claim, find a passage, table or figure in the source and record its location. Compare the population, intervention, outcome, time period and uncertainty. A paper about one dataset does not automatically support a statement about every dataset.
Distinguish direct support from inference. If the paper reports an association, do not restate it as a causal effect. If a number appears in the answer, check the units, baseline and denominator in the original table. When you can access only the abstract, write “abstract checked; full text not checked” and limit your conclusion accordingly.
3. Check for corrections, retractions and conflicting evidence
Look at the publisher's article page for updates before relying on a finding. Crossmark can display changes such as corrections and retractions for participating content. Its presence is a useful route to status information; an absent badge is not evidence that a paper has no updates.
A citation may exist and accurately report a finding while the larger conclusion is still weak. Look for conflicting studies and note differences in methods or context. Record an unresolved disagreement as a gap. Do not quietly drop an inconvenient source to make the answer sound more certain.
Crossref: Crossmark and the current status of researchA checklist you can reuse
For each material claim, keep: the exact claim; the source identifier; the source title and version; the passage or table checked; a verdict of supported, partly supported, unsupported or not checked; and the reason for that verdict. Make the reason specific enough that a second reader can follow it.
For example, if an answer says “the method cuts errors by half,” a useful note might say “partly supported: table 3 reports that reduction only for the small-model condition.” This illustrative example shows why checking a number without its experimental setting is insufficient. Keep the qualified wording when you write your own summary.
Apply the checks in a Keryx workflow
Use the free matrix to record what you checked, what remains uncertain and the source location. In Keryx's literature workspace, saved references are bibliographic records plus your notes. Saving a reference does not mean that Keryx has accessed its full text or verified its claims.
For a research run, inspect the delivered citations and available evidence before reusing the answer. Keep missing or unread evidence visible. If the exact support is unavailable, narrow the claim or ask a follow-up question. A polished answer becomes more useful when readers can tell which statements are checked and which still need work.