How to Cite Consensus, Elicit, SciSpace and Other AI Research Tools

Chatbots generate text. AI research tools such as Consensus, Elicit, SciSpace and Wonders do something different: they search databases of published papers and help you screen, read and compare them. That difference decides how citation works. The thing you end up using is a paper with authors, a journal and a DOI, and that is what goes in your reference list.

This page covers the tool side: when the tool needs a mention and how to word it. For the paper side, see how to cite sources you found through AI tools.

The rule: cite what you read

APA's 2025 guidance on AI as a search engine says it plainly: using AI to find a source is like using Google search or a database search. After reading the sources you cite them; in most cases the AI is not cited at all. MLA's 2025 update likewise says to click through to the cited sources and use those directly, and warns that AI tools can make up sources. Nobody cites PubMed for a paper they found on PubMed.

So for a paper found in Consensus:

The article is real; you can open it through its DOI. Check every reference that way before it goes in your list: open the DOI or the publisher page and confirm the authors, year, title and journal match. Tools built on real indexes rarely invent papers, but metadata errors happen, and a generated summary can attach a finding to the wrong paper.

Three cases where the tool is named

1. You are reporting the tool's own synthesis

Consensus describes its Consensus Meter as a visual meter showing the distribution of research findings for a yes/no question. If you report that distribution, the claim is about Consensus's analysis, not about any one paper. Attribute it to the tool, give the date and query, and treat it as weak evidence. It is better practice to read the studies and make the count yourself, in which case you cite the studies and the tool drops out.

2. You are describing your search method

Systematic and scoping reviews must report where and how they searched. PRISMA 2020 asks for all sources searched or consulted (item 6), the date each was last searched, and the full search strategies (item 7). A sentence in the methods section does this. A pattern to adapt, with your own details in the brackets:

Only report what you actually did.

Elicit's help center describes its search pipeline (semantic retrieval, relevance scoring, then screening against your criteria) in wording you can adapt. Consensus's own library guide tells users to read the original abstract and paper before citing, and never to copy its generated summaries into a paper. APA's Part 2 guidance adds a wrinkle for literature reviews and meta-analyses: if you describe your search strategy, name the AI tools and give them references, even though databases do not get one. Semantic ranking changes as indexes and models are updated, so record the date and export your results the day you search.

3. Your institution or journal requires AI disclosure

Journals that follow ICMJE want AI-assisted technologies described in the cover letter and the manuscript. IEEE wants disclosure in the acknowledgments, and ACM's 2026 policy wants AI used in the research itself described in the methods section. Many universities now ask students to declare AI tools. For a discovery tool, a sentence is enough:

Tool by tool

Elicit publishes a preferred citation: "Elicit; Elicit: The AI Research Assistant; https://elicit.com; accessed" followed by the date, along with a BibTeX software entry, and asks that every citation include the URL and date. It also recommends against pasting its generated text into your work verbatim.

Consensus describes itself as an AI-powered search engine and research tool. The Consensus Meter and generated summaries are the tool's own outputs; everything else is a pointer to a paper. Its citation button produces references to the papers, in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, BibTeX and AMA/Numeric formats.

SciSpace and other reading assistants. When a tool explains a paper or answers questions about it, those explanations are reading aids. Quote and cite the paper, not the explanation. If an explanation shaped your interpretation and your policy requires disclosure, name the tool in the acknowledgments.

Wonders is our own tool, so here is the honest version. Wonders searches OpenAlex and Semantic Scholar (320M+ scholarly works) and has no index of its own; quotes in its summaries are checked against the paper text, and the bibliography exports in six citation styles or as BibTeX or RIS. None of that changes the rule. You cite the papers. Wonders belongs in your methods section or acknowledgments if you need to describe how you searched, and nowhere else. It does not write your paper, and it should not appear as a source for a factual claim.

If a reference to the tool is required

Use your style's format for software or for an AI tool, with the company as author and the date of use stated. None of the style authorities publishes an example for these tools, so the entries below are their general templates applied by us.

APA 7:

MLA 9: Consensus. [year], consensus.app. Accessed [Day Mon. Year]. Add the access date because the content changes.

Chicago: mention the tool in the text or in a note, such as: 1. Search conducted with Elicit, https://elicit.com, [Month Day, Year]. No bibliography entry is needed.

IEEE, adapting the Reference Guide's software format: [1] Elicit. Elicit: The AI Research Assistant. ([year]). Accessed: [Mon. Day, Year]. [Online]. Available: https://elicit.com

Vancouver and AMA: describe the tool in the methods section with the date of use. University guides to the AMA Manual of Style say AI tools are described in the text and not cited in the reference list, and ICMJE says referencing AI-generated material as the primary source is not acceptable.

The bracketed descriptions are ours. APA says the bracketed wording is flexible, so follow your instructor's wording if they give one.

Common mistakes

• Citing the tool's URL in place of the paper.
• Citing a paper from its AI summary without opening it.
• Copying a reference from the tool without checking it against the publisher's page.
• Reporting a tool's "consensus" percentage as if it were a meta-analysis.
• Leaving the tool out of a systematic review's methods because it "only helped".

Sources

All pages were checked on 21 September 2026.

• American Psychological Association, Citing generative AI in APA Style: Part 2, AI as a search engine and AI integrated into common software (September 2025)
• MLA Style Center, How do I cite generative AI in MLA style? (Updated and Revised) (August 2025)
• Elicit Help Center, Citing Elicit, search methodology, and using Elicit's content in your own work
• Consensus, Consensus LibGuide for academic research and Creating a citation
• Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., et al. (2021), The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews, BMJ, 372, n71 (items 6 and 7: information sources and search strategy)
• Walker, M. P., & Stickgold, R. (2006), Sleep, memory, and plasticity, Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 139–166 (the example article; checked against Crossref)
• The AMA Manual of Style is paywalled; we followed Himmelfarb Library, George Washington University and Duquesne University Library
• ACM, Policy on Authorship (updated 14 May 2026)
• IEEE Author Center, Submission and peer review policies: AI-generated content
• ICMJE, Recommendations: artificial intelligence, use by authors