Quick answer
Check two things separately: Does the cited source exist, and does it support the exact claim? Open the original page, confirm its title, author and date, then find the relevant passage or data. A convincing citation—or a working link—is not enough. University library guidance specifically recommends verifying both the source’s existence and its support for the claim. (guides.libraries.psu.edu)
Use the process below before copying an AI-generated fact into an assignment, presentation, lesson plan or workplace document. Start with the claims that matter most to your conclusion.
1. Turn the answer into claims you can check
Do not try to approve an entire answer in one decision. Break it into individual statements that could be confirmed or challenged.
The University of Maryland Libraries recommends separating AI output into smaller, searchable claims, then checking them outside the AI tool. It calls this broader approach lateral reading: leaving the answer and consulting other sources rather than continuing down the same response. (lib.guides.umd.edu)
For example, this fictional sentence contains several checks:
“A 2025 university study found that AI-generated revision notes improve every student’s exam performance.”
You would need to establish:
- Whether the study exists.
- Whether it was published in 2025.
- Whether it studied AI-generated revision notes.
- What outcome it measured.
- Whether its participants justify saying “every student.”
As a practical starting point, highlight names, dates, numbers, direct quotations and sweeping words such as all, always or proves. Give each important claim its own line in your notes.
Ask yourself: If this statement were wrong, would my conclusion change? Check those statements first.
2. Open the citation and establish that it exists
A citation is a reference to a source: perhaps a webpage, research paper, report or book. Its formatting does not establish its authenticity.
UBC Library warns that AI-generated references can include real researchers’ names but invented article titles or incorrect journal details. This means recognising the author’s name is not enough. (guides.library.ubc.ca)
For each important citation:
- Open the link. Does it lead to the named document, rather than a homepage or unrelated article?
- Compare the details. Check the title, author, publication, year and any volume or page information.
- Search independently. Search the title in quotation marks. For academic work, try a library catalogue or Google Scholar.
- Check identifiers. If the citation provides a DOI—a persistent identifier for a document—open it and compare the document details.
Carnegie Mellon University Libraries recommends looking up AI-supplied titles in a library catalogue or Google Scholar before using them. (guides.library.cmu.edu)
If a link is broken: search for the title and author through the publisher or library. Do not immediately label the reference invented.
If you still cannot locate it: mark it unverified and leave it out of your work. Penn State’s guidance advises against using a citation when you cannot find the source itself. (guides.libraries.psu.edu)
3. Check who published it—and when its evidence applies
Once a source exists, ask whether it is suitable for the claim.
Look for an author or responsible organisation, relevant expertise, a publication or update date, and an explanation of where its information came from. For research, examine the methods, funding and stated limitations. Carnegie Mellon’s guidance emphasises matching expertise to the claim and looking for evidence, disclosed methods and acknowledged limits—not just a polished website. (guides.library.cmu.edu)
Use lateral reading here too. Open another tab and investigate the author or organisation through independent sources. The University of Maryland recommends checking outside the AI answer to establish who can confirm its claims. (lib.guides.umd.edu)
Record dates separately:
| Date to record | Question it answers |
|---|---|
| Publication or update date | When was this document released or revised? |
| Evidence period | When were the observations or data collected? |
| Your access date | When did you check the source? |
Do not assume a recently updated webpage contains newly collected evidence. Look for the study period or dataset year.
Currency matters especially for changing subjects. UBC’s evaluation guidance identifies when a document was created, edited or revised as an important consideration when recent information is needed. (guides.library.ubc.ca)
A useful note is: “Page updated recently; figures describe an earlier period.” That is more informative than simply writing “current source.”
4. Match the exact claim to the original passage
Now perform the central test: Where does the source support this statement?
Penn State explicitly separates verifying that a reference exists from verifying that it supports the claim attached to it. OpenAI’s own search documentation likewise warns that citations can be incomplete, outdated or incorrect and recommends opening sources to check support. (guides.libraries.psu.edu)
Use your browser’s Find function—usually Ctrl+F or Command+F—to search for a distinctive phrase, number or term. Then read the surrounding paragraphs, not just the matching sentence.
For a direct quotation, check:
- Are the words reproduced accurately?
- Who originally said or wrote them?
- Is the source quoting someone else?
- Have omissions changed the meaning?
For a paraphrase, compare the scope:
- Does “some participants” become “everyone”?
- Does “may help” become “will improve”?
- Does a finding about one task become a claim about overall ability?
- Does the source describe an observation while the AI presents a proven explanation?
These are practical comparison questions, not a scoring system. Write down the relevant passage and explain the match in your own words.
If you cannot access the full document, state that limitation. For this workflow, treat a title, search preview or abstract as insufficient whenever it does not contain the evidence needed for your particular claim.
Using an AI tool’s citation features
In ChatGPT responses that use web search, select a citation to open its source. A Sources option may also be available, but it can include other relevant links as well as cited sources. Do not assume every listed link supports every sentence. These interface details were checked against official documentation on October 26, 2026. (help.openai.com)
5. Trace statistics and distinguish primary from secondary evidence
For a numerical claim, follow the references until you reach the underlying report, dataset or original study wherever possible.
A primary source supplies original evidence or a first-hand record. A secondary source summarises, interprets or analyses other material. The Library of Congress uses this distinction, while Cornell explains that original research articles report new findings and review articles synthesise existing research. (ask.loc.gov)
Neither category automatically wins. A review can help you understand a field and locate original studies; Cornell specifically recommends using its references for that purpose. (guides.library.cornell.edu)
Try this trail:
AI answer → linked article → referenced report → relevant table and methods
At the underlying source, record:
- Population: Who or what was measured?
- Place and period: Where and when?
- Measure: What exactly was counted?
- Denominator: Out of how many?
- Comparison: Compared with what?
- Limitations: What does the source say it cannot establish?
Fictional arithmetic example: Suppose a club’s attendance rate rises from 40% to 50%. That is an increase of 10 percentage points. Relative to the original 40%, the increase is 25%, calculated as (50 − 40) ÷ 40 × 100. Keep the starting and ending values in your notes so the wording remains clear.
Also check whether apparently separate articles lead back to the same report. For your worksheet, count that as one underlying evidence source, not several independent confirmations.
6. Worked example: investigate a fictional citation
Everything in this example—the citation, organisation, findings and search outcomes—is fictional. It illustrates the checking process, not a real study.
Imagine an AI answer says:
“AI revision cards improve all students’ test scores by 30%.”
It supplies:
Example Learning Lab. (2025). AI Revision Cards and Classroom Results. Example Education Bulletin.
Here is how to handle it.
Step 1: Isolate the claims.
The answer asserts an improvement, a size of 30%, and an effect applying to all students.
Step 2: Check the reference.
Imagine the link opens a real-looking page, but its title differs from the citation and no underlying study is provided.
Step 3: Read the actual evidence.
In this imagined scenario, the page describes a voluntary feedback exercise. Participants said the cards were convenient; the page reports no test-score comparison.
Step 4: Compare claim and support.
| AI statement | Evidence in the imagined page | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| Scores improved | Convenience feedback only | Not supported |
| Improvement was 30% | No score calculation | Not supported |
| Applies to all students | Voluntary participant feedback | Not supported |
Step 5: Write only what the evidence allows.
A cautious replacement would be:
“The page describes favourable participant feedback about convenience; it does not establish improved test scores.”
The lesson is not that the opposite claim must be true. It is that this citation does not establish this answer.
Independent-thinking exercise: Before asking the AI to repair the response, write one sentence describing what evidence would actually be needed to support the original claim.
7. Use a claim-checking worksheet and make a decision
Copy this worksheet into your notes. Complete one row per important claim.
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Exact claim | The AI’s wording |
| Source identity | Title, author or organisation, publisher |
| Location | URL or document identifier |
| Dates | Publication, evidence period, access |
| Supporting evidence | Passage, section, page or table |
| Scope | People, place, task and conditions |
| Limitations | Missing access, unclear methods, conflicting evidence |
| Verdict | Supported, partly supported, contradicted or unverified |
| Action | Keep, qualify, replace or remove |
These verdicts describe your evidence check, not an automatic truth score.
Before using the answer, check for common mistakes:
- Asking “Are you sure?” instead of checking externally. Move to the source and independent evidence.
- Trusting citation formatting. Confirm the document’s identity.
- Accepting a working link. Locate the supporting passage.
- Keeping an exaggerated claim. Narrow it to the source’s actual scope.
- Treating “not found” as “false.” Record the uncertainty instead.
The underlying principles are consistent across the library guidance: locate the reference, inspect its support, and verify important claims outside the AI tool. (guides.libraries.psu.edu)
A useful follow-up prompt is:
“List the factual claims separately. For each, give the original source and the section, page or table that supports it. Mark anything you cannot verify. Do not invent missing references.”
Treat the reply as a new set of leads—not completed verification. Keep only the claims you can support, qualify those supported only in part, and leave unresolved claims visibly unresolved.