Artificial Intelligence in Research
Researchers should distinguish useful AI-generated information from verified research evidence. Consequential factual claims should be checked against appropriate primary or authoritative sources before they influence a manuscript, analysis, or research decision.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Researchers should treat AI-generated information as material to evaluate, not evidence to trust by default. A reliable verification process traces important claims back to independent, authoritative sources and checks whether the evidence actually supports them.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Not every sentence in an AI-generated response carries the same verification burden. Researchers should prioritize claims, citations, calculations, methods, interpretations, and other content whose accuracy affects the research.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Researchers remain responsible for factual claims they use, but that does not mean every AI-generated sentence requires identical verification effort. The sensible approach is risk-based: verify consequential claims rigorously and do not publish unsupported claims merely because AI supplied them.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
A plausible scientific claim from AI is not evidence. Verify it by defining exactly what the claim asserts, locating appropriate scientific sources, and checking whether the evidence actually supports that specific conclusion.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
An AI-generated DOI should be treated as an unverified identifier until you check it independently. Resolve the DOI, compare its metadata with the cited work, and confirm that it identifies the source you actually intend to use.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Asking AI to reconsider or check its answer can reveal some errors, but it does not constitute independent verification. Independent verification requires evidence or a checking process that does not depend solely on the original generative system.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
A second AI model can catch errors the first model missed, but model agreement is not independent evidence that an answer is correct. Cross-model review is best used as an additional diagnostic layer before verification against authoritative sources, data, calculations, tests, or other external evidence.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
AI models can sometimes detect and correct their own mistakes, particularly under structured verification procedures, but self-verification remains unreliable as a general guarantee of correctness. For consequential research work, use self-review to identify possible problems and external evidence to resolve them.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Independent verification means checking AI-assisted research against evidence or a validation process that does not simply depend on the generated answer itself. The appropriate method depends on whether you are verifying a claim, citation, calculation, code, result, or interpretation.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
The best AI tool for research depends on what you need it to do and what could go wrong if it fails. Choose by task fit, verifiability, privacy, transparency, and research risk rather than popularity or headline capabilities.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
General-purpose and research-specific AI tools solve different problems. The better choice depends on the research task, the evidence you need, and how easily you can verify the output.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Paying for an AI tool can change access to models, features, usage limits, and data controls, but price does not establish research reliability. Compare what the specific plan changes for the task you need to perform.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
A more capable AI model may perform better on difficult research tasks, but capability and reliability are not the same thing. Researchers still need task-specific testing, source verification, and appropriate safeguards.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Before putting an AI tool into a research workflow, test it on representative tasks, inspect consequential errors, verify its evidence and data practices, and decide what level of human checking remains necessary.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Widespread use by other researchers can help identify useful AI tools, but popularity is not validation. Your decision should depend on evidence about the tool, the task, and the risks in your own research.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
An AI tool marketed for academics may offer genuinely useful research features, but academic branding is not evidence of accuracy or methodological validity. Evaluate what the tool actually does and what evidence supports its use.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Researchers do not need every proprietary detail of an AI system, but they need enough evidence to judge whether it is fit for a particular research use. That includes intended use, sources, evaluation, limitations, data practices, and important system changes.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Researchers should be able to understand the relevant information sources behind consequential AI outputs. Source transparency helps reveal what can be verified, what may be missing, and how much confidence an answer deserves.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
An AI tool does not need to reveal every technical detail to be useful for research. It becomes too opaque when missing information prevents researchers from adequately evaluating, verifying, governing, or defending the role it will play.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Your university may permit an AI tool while a journal restricts how it can be used in submitted work. Institutional permission and publication requirements govern different parts of the research process.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Research information does not simply disappear after an AI system generates a response. Depending on the service and settings, it may be processed, stored, logged, retained, reviewed, or used for other documented purposes.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Unpublished research is not automatically confidential, but entering it into a public AI tool can create disclosure, privacy, ownership, and policy concerns. Check what the material contains and whether you are authorized to submit it before doing so.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Do not assume that a confidential research proposal can be uploaded to an AI tool simply because you wrote it. Proposal content may be governed by confidentiality, institutional, funder, collaborator, intellectual-property, and data-handling requirements.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
An unpublished manuscript is not automatically prohibited from AI use, but uploading the complete document can expose far more information than a writing task requires. Check confidentiality, co-author rights, research data, publisher rules, and the AI service before submitting it.
Read Guide →
