ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2026
Leveraging generative artificial intelligence errors to teach appropriate citation usage.
Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Practical and positive uses of AI in STEM education: taming the AI tiger.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Educators would benefit from developing course material that increases understanding of generative artificial intelligence (AI). General-purpose large language models (LLMs) popular among students often handle citations incorrectly. These LLMs produce fabricated references referred to as hallucinations and often cite even real citations erroneously. These citation hallucinations and errors offer an opportunity to correct mistakes, understand reference interpretation, and learn appropriate source type usage. Here we repurpose generative AI errors as examples for teaching the rigorous citation of primary and secondary sources in scientific writing. The designed exercise simultaneously achieves learning objectives with regard to AI and information literacy. Seeing the factual errors in writing and citation usage firsthand demonstrates a key weakness in generative AI. Also, our exercise gives students a structure in which to practice appropriate source type usage. The errors produced by generative AI provide opportunities to practice and improve scientific writing skills. Our article proposes a conceptual framework within which to implement this approach in the classroom.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.