Research with AI and check citations

What you will learn

• The difference between AI tools that search for sources and those that answer from memory
• What a traceable citation is, and why it matters
• How to check that a source really says what the AI claims
• Why primary sources and dates matter in research

The idea

Some AI tools can search the web or your documents and show links to where they found information. Others answer only from patterns learned during training, which stops at a knowledge cutoff, the date after which the model has no information. A general assistant without search can sound sure about recent events it simply does not know. Find out whether the tool you use is searching or answering from memory. If you are unsure, look for links in the answer and ask the tool directly.

A traceable citation is one you can follow to a real source: a link, a title, an author or organisation, and ideally a page or section. "Studies show" is not a citation. Even a real-looking link is not proof. AI can produce a hallucination, confident output that is wrong, and that includes made-up titles, wrong authors, and links to pages that do not exist or say something different.

So open every source you plan to rely on and read the part the AI is using. Ask: does this page actually say that, in that way? Summaries often drop conditions such as "in some cases" or "only in one region".

Prefer primary sources: the original law, the official statistics page, the organisation's own announcement, the published paper. A news story or blog post about a study is a secondary source and may get details wrong. Finally, note the date of every source. Rules, prices and facts change, and an old page can be right for its time but wrong today. For more on checking, see How to check what AI tells you.

Example

Sam is writing a short briefing on the rules for employers paying home office costs in his country. He uses a tool that shows its sources:

What are the current rules on employers paying for home office costs in [country]?
For each claim, give the source title, the link, and the date of the source.
Mark anything you could not find a source for.

The answer lists four claims with links. Sam opens each one. Two lead to the official government page and match what the tool said. One goes to a news article from three years ago, so he searches the official site for the current version. The fourth link opens a page that does not mention the claim at all, so he drops that claim. His final notes keep only what he confirmed himself, with the source and its date next to each point.

Practice now

1. Choose a factual question you care about, for example a rule at your school or a public guideline.
2. Ask any AI tool the question, and ask for a source title, link and date for each claim.
3. Open every link. For each one, write "matches", "does not match" or "could not open".
4. For any claim that matters, find the primary source yourself.
5. Write the date next to each source you keep.

At the end you should have a short list of claims, each with a source you opened yourself and a date.

Copy this template

Research question: [your question]
Why I need it: [for example, a school report or a work briefing]
Place and time: [country or region, and how recent the information must be]

For each claim:
- give the source title, author or organisation, link, and publication date
- say whether it is a primary source (official or original) or a secondary source
- quote the exact sentence from the source that supports the claim

Keep claims that have a source separate from your own inferences.
Mark anything you are unsure about or could not find a source for.

Asking AI to flag uncertainty does not make its answer correct. Keep checking the parts that matter.

Check the output

• Does every link open, and does it lead to the source the AI named?
• Does the source actually say what the AI claims, including any conditions?
• Is the quoted sentence really on the page?
• Is the source primary, or can you find the primary one behind it?
• Is the date recent enough for your question?
• Are claims without a source clearly marked, not mixed in with the checked ones?

Common mistakes

• Treating a link as proof. A link can be real and still not support the claim. Open it and read the relevant part.
• Asking a tool without search about recent events. It may answer from old information. Use a tool that shows its sources, or check a current official page yourself.
• Relying on secondary sources. A summary of a study may get it wrong. Go to the original when the point matters.
• Ignoring dates. An old page can describe rules that have since changed. Write the date next to each source.
• Pasting confidential documents into a research tool. What you type or upload is usually sent to the tool's provider. Keep private, company or other people's data out unless your organisation allows it.