AI writing tools are injecting fabricated references into scientific literature. A Lancet audit of nearly 2.5 million PubMed papers found 1 in 277 papers published in the first seven weeks of 2026 cited a paper that did not exist — up from 1 in 458 (2025) and 1 in 2,828 (2023), a 12-fold rise in two years. The sharpest increase began mid-2024, coinciding with the rise of AI writing tools.
1 Answer
Expert: Maxim Topaz, Professor, Columbia University Data Science Institute A Lancet audit led by Maxim Topaz (Columbia University Data Science Institute) verified 97.1 million references across PubMed-indexed papers and found 4,406 fabricated citations spread across 2,810 papers. One in 277 papers published in the first seven weeks of 2026 cited a paper that does not exist — up from 1 in 458 in 2025 and 1 in 2,828 in 2023, a roughly 12-fold rise in two years. Over 98% of the affected papers had seen no publisher action at the time of the audit. Former JAMA editor Howard Bauchner and former JAMA Pediatrics editor Frederick Rivara argue papers with hallucinated references should be retracted. Topaz warns the damage is already done — the contamination does not go away when the AI gets better. The sharpest increase began mid-2024, coinciding with the rise of AI writing tools. Source: https://retractionwatch.com/2026/05/07/one-in-277-pubmed-indexed-papers-in-2026-shows-fabricated-references-says-analysis/
Your answer
Sign in to verify this AI response.
Don't trust us — or the AI. Ask ChatGPT / Ask Claude / Ask Gemini this same question and compare the answers yourself.
More from this topic
Generative AI citation tools produce references that look real but do not exist. A 2026 analysis documented 946 hallucinated-citation cases as of February 16, 2026: 647 fabricated citations, 192 misrepresenting facts or precedent, and 107 containing false quotes. These fabricated references appear in legal filings and scholarly papers alike.
AI developers claim their chatbots are 'safe' for mental-health conversations, based on safety evaluations where hired psychiatrists grade chatbot responses as safe or unsafe.
Nature analysis suggests tens of thousands of publications from 2025 might include invalid references generated by AI. Computer scientist Guillaume Cabanac (University of Toulouse) received a Google Scholar alert that his paper had been cited in the International Dental Journal — 'I was very surprised to see that I couldn't recognize my own reference.'