Quick answer
Retain the original entry, independently search its title and authors, check the DOI’s record and open the publisher’s material. Finding a record, accessing an abstract, reading full text and establishing support are separate judgments. Mark missing or inaccessible evidence explicitly; the model’s own verification is not sufficient.
Keep the entry and the claim it would support
Record the title, authors, year, publication and DOI exactly as supplied, alongside the sentence you want the work to support. Retain generation date and context to identify inconsistent entries from the same output. Do not paste a polished list straight into an assignment or report.
Give each entry separate identity, access-scope and claim-support states. A matching title does not establish matching authors or year; an abstract is not full text. The AI study-summary verification workflow helps with material you already have, but summary checking cannot replace bibliographic identity checks.
Find the work through an independent entry point
- 1Search the full title with an author, then inspect publisher or reliable library records. If there is no exact result, investigate obvious spelling differences and retain the search process.
- 2Crossref’s search help describes title, author, DOI and full-citation queries. Compare fields in a candidate result instead of accepting the highest-ranked match.
- 3If a DOI is supplied, open its doi.org address and compare the destination’s title, authors, publication and dates. Do not ask AI to invent a plausible identifier to fill a gap.
- 4Record an exact match, inconsistent fields or an unresolved search. If you find a related paper, create a separate record rather than silently substituting it as evidence for the original entry.
A missing search result does not establish nonexistence. Metadata coverage, spelling, versions and access can affect discovery. Preserve an unresolved state when evidence is insufficient.
Understand the limits of identifiers and metadata
The DOI Foundation’s explanation describes persistent identification and resolution to an object or information about it. Opening an identifier is one discovery step; it may lead to something different from the supplied citation.
Crossref’s REST API documentation describes scholarly metadata deposited by members and trusted sources. Metadata helps establish identity; it does not read the paper, assess its quality or establish support for your claim. Online and issue publication can also have different dates. Consult the publisher’s explanation before labeling a difference an error.
Check the claim against accessible original material
Identify whether you can access full text, an abstract, a preprint or the published version. For the sentence you intend to cite, record its source location, studied population or materials, conditions and limitations. Similar methods or a shared topic do not establish that the authors made your intended claim.
Suppose you want to write that a review schedule applies to every course. Check whether the original work actually addresses that breadth. If it studies one kind of material, removing that condition would overstate the result. This is an editorial checking scenario, not reported findings or data from a particular study.
Turn a claim into a question you can answer from the source. The active-recall note workflow can support this understanding check. For statistics, figures and direct quotations, return to the original location instead of relying on the model’s retelling.
Handle abstract-only access and paywalls
Mark abstract-only access explicitly. Describe only what you actually read; do not cite inaccessible methods, page numbers or data as verified. Seek full text through an authorized library route, publisher open version or author-provided version, and verify which version you found.
If the evidence needed for a claim is unavailable, defer the citation or narrow the statement to accessible support. A bibliography does not need to originate entirely from AI. Prefer original material you can locate and read accurately over a longer list containing unverified entries.
Check the evidence behind every delivered citation
- Identity: title, authors, publication, year and identifier or stable address have a retrievable basis; differences are explained.
- Scope: clearly distinguish abstract, full text and other versions. Inaccessible material is not labeled as read.
- Support: the cited claim has a source location, conditions and limits. Association is not silently expanded into causation or a universal effect.
- Maintenance: inspect any correction, retraction or version information supplied by the publisher and reconsider the wording when relevant updates exist.
- Recordkeeping: retain check date and access scope; remove private account details before sharing notes. Finished formatting does not establish factual verification.
Common questions
Can a reference with a DOI be cited immediately?
No. Check that the identifier matches the work, then inspect accessible original material and the limits of support for your claim.
Does no Crossref result prove AI invented the reference?
Not by itself. Check spelling, other authoritative entry points and versions. Keep an unresolved entry unverified when evidence remains insufficient.
Is asking the same AI to check again enough?
No. It can organize questions, but identity and support require independent records and actual source inspection. The model’s confirmation is not original evidence.
