The DOI matches its DataCite record.
‘Conversations’ with ChatGPT regarding its knowledge of Ben Williamson’s publications and the creation of AI-Generated Ghost Citations
Open accessAbstract
Following the protocol for the reporting of conversations with ChatGPT[1], this supportive document provides the full text of the conversations with ChatGPT that were used and analysed in the following paper: Spennemann, Dirk H. R. (2026). How unique are hallucinated citations offered by generative Artificial Intelligence models ?
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“a supportive document archived at the author's institution provides the full text of the three conversations with ChatGPT that were used and analysed in this paper. [10]”
From How unique are hallucinated citations offered by generative Artificial Intelligence models? (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Spennemann, D.
- Affiliations
- Charles Sturt University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Spennemann, Dirk
- ORCID
- Spennemann, Dirk
- Venue
- Charles Sturt University
- Publisher
- Charles Sturt University
- Published
- 2026
- OpenAlex
- W7143479437
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- dataset
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Charles Sturt University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, hallucinations, AI-generated citations, citation accuracy, generative AI
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
