ReviewNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026
AI hallucinations in academic writing: implications for research integrity.
Review in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As artificial intelligence becomes deeply embedded in scholarly practice, a critical and underexamined threat to research integrity has emerged: AI hallucinations. AI hallucinations refer to outputs generated by large language models that are factually incorrect, fabricated, or logically inconsistent with verifiable knowledge, produced not through genuine understanding but through statistical pattern prediction. This paper examines how these hallucinations manifest in academic writing and analyzes their specific consequences for scholarly work. The paper identifies the principal causes of hallucination, including training data gaps, monofacts, named entity errors, and prompt design failures, and documents their most common forms in academic contexts, among them citation fabrication, factual distortion, logical inconsistency, and propagation errors. The paper then examines how these failures undermine the accuracy and reliability of research and disrupt peer review processes in ways that traditional editorial mechanisms are not equipped to detect. Ethical dimensions are addressed directly: AI hallucinations create conditions of distributed epistemic responsibility that complicate established definitions of research misconduct and authorship, yet accountability remains fully with human authors. Also, it discusses mitigation strategies, including detection tools, institutional policy frameworks, and AI literacy curricula, arguing that human verification is irreplaceable and that literacy-based approaches offer the most sustainable institutional response. Equity concerns are highlighted throughout, as hallucination rates vary by language and disciplinary domain. The paper concludes that responsible AI use in scholarship requires transparency, systematic verification, and human oversight as non-negotiable ethical obligations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42217043What 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.