Researchers who use hallucinated references to face arXiv ban
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Current mitigation measures remain insufficiently reliable.
“Although several open research tools for detecting hallucinated citations are now available, and platforms such as arXiv have started to respond more rigorously to this issue (Chawla, 2026), current mitigation measures remain insufficiently reliable.”
From Detecting Hallucinated and Suspicious Citations: What Current Tools Can and Cannot Do (2026) · cites this paper as Chawla, 2026
Publishers have started penalizing the submission of fabricated references; arXiv imposes a one-year ban on authors who submit hallucinated citations.
“Publishers have started penalizing the submission of fabricated references: arXiv, for instance, imposes a one-year ban on authors who submit hallucinated citations 33 .”
From Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
“Academic Slop”: Definition and Bibliometric Exploration of Its Relationship to AI Tools
Daly, T. P., da Silva, J. A. T., & Nazarovets, S. (2026) · Internet Reference Services Quarterly · doi:10.1080/10875301.2026.2685154 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Detecting Hallucinated and Suspicious Citations: What Current Tools Can and Cannot Do
Badalova, F., & Mayr, P. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.22693 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Although several open research tools for detecting hallucinated citations are now available, and platforms such as arXiv have started to respond more rigorously to this issue [4], current mitigation measures remain insufficiently reliable.”
Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models
Roberts, K. F., Koutarapu, S., Melendez, J., Landsness, E. C., Reese, J. T., Elbert, D. L., & Bateman, R. J. (2026) · npj Dementia · doi:10.1038/s44400-026-00126-3
“Publishers have started penalizing the submission of fabricated references: arXiv, for instance, imposes a one-year ban on authors who submit hallucinated citations 33 .”
Muslim, A., Asri, N. A. M., & Lyons, D. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/105453
Fabricated references are twice as common in medRxiv preprints as in peer‐reviewed articles
Topaz, M., Zhang, Z., Gupta, P., Roguin, N., & Peltonen, L. (2026) · Journal of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/joim.70139
Seven ways to improve observational epidemiology and build trust
Meyerowitz‐Katz, G., & Pai, M. (2026) · Nature Health · doi:10.1038/s44360-026-00199-7
AI Slop in Radiology: Cutting Through the Clutter
Bera, K., Ramaiya, N. H., & Tirumani, S. H. (2026) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.26.35537
‘AI slop’ hides the conversations we should be having
Singer, D. J. (2026) · npj Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s44387-026-00161-8
Predicting the long-term impact of AI assistants on collective intelligencePreprint
Kim, J., & Park, S. W. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.09.29.755292
Did you cite your sources? Why bibliography matters
Cohen, S. M., & Yagel, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1947650
- Authors
- Singh Chawla, D.
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2026-05-19
- Volume
- 653
- Issue
- 8116
- Pages
- 988-989
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W7161715199
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9
- Type
- other
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- AI-generated text, arXiv, preprint servers, AI-generated research, research integrity, scholarly publishing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
