The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Integrity under pressure: on generative AI, fabricated references and ethical publishing
Open accessAbstract
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly present in academic writing workflows, and their irresponsible use poses a growing threat to the integrity of scholarly publishing. In this editorial, we highlight the emergence of AI-generated references, or so-called “ghost references”, as a specific concern for JCOM and the wider academic community. We consider how AI tools like large language models can produce convincing yet fictitious citations that might bypass standard peer review. Also, we reaffirm JCOM's policy requiring full disclosure of any generative AI use in preparing manuscripts, remind authors that the responsibility for accuracy and integrity lies with those whose names appear on submissions, and outline our commitment to reject, withdraw, or retract manuscripts found to contain fabricated content at any stage of the publication process. As a journal dedicated to science communication, JCOM maintains a strong focus on the honest and transparent development of knowledge.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- COPE Council. (2019). COPE Discussion Document: Authorship. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3 · DOI
- Moore, E. (2025). The case of the fake references in an ethics journal. https://retractionwatch.com/202 5/12/02/fake-references-chatgpt-journal-academic-ethics-springer-nature-whistleblowing
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gordon, A. J., Bounthavong, M., Corte, C. M., Siantz, E., Mahmoud, K. F., Finnell, D. S., Scheuermann, T. S., Kyei, E. F., Wyse, J. J. B., Oliva, E. M., et al. (2026) · Substance Use & Addiction Journal · doi:10.1177/29767342261471638 · Cited by 1
How unique are hallucinated citations offered by generative Artificial Intelligence models?
Spennemann, D. H. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.16407 · Cited by 4
“While the nature and frequency of hallucinated references has seen academic attention (Boretti, 2026; Chelli et al., 2024; Joubert & Riedlinger, 2026; Sakai et al., 2026; Spennemann, 2025b; Walters & Wilder, 2023; Xu et al., 2026; Yaddaf, 2025), and while the predictive technology of LLMs is…”
Metadata
- Authors
- Joubert, M., & Riedlinger, M.
- Affiliations
- Stellenbosch University (ZA)
- Venue
- Journal of Science Communication
- Publisher
- Sissa Medialab Srl
- Published
- 2026-03-11
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 1824-2049 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7134923756
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Science Communication (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Keywords
- generative AI, AI-generated references, research integrity, publication ethics, large language models, peer review, science communication
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
