Try Wonders for free
AI research tools are changing how we find literature. But when you discover a paper through Wonders, Elicit, Semantic Scholar, or even ChatGPT, citation gets confusing fast. Do you credit the tool? Just the paper? Both? Let's sort it out.
The Short Answer
Cite the source you actually read and used. You generally don't need to cite the AI tool that helped you find it, but you will likely need to disclose that you used it in Acknowledgements.
Think of it like Google Scholar—you wouldn't cite Google Scholar for helping you discover a paper. The same logic applies to AI-powered discovery tools like Elicit, Consensus, Semantic Scholar, ResearchRabbit, or Wonders.
When You Might Need to Mention the Tool
There are a few exceptions where acknowledging your discovery method makes sense:
In your methodology section if you're conducting a systematic review or describing your search strategy. Reviewers and readers care about how you found your sources. This isn't a formal citation—it's methodological transparency.
If the AI tool provided the summary or synthesis you're using. This is different from finding a source. If Consensus gave you a claim like "8 out of 10 studies found X" and you're reporting that synthesis, you're not citing the original papers—you're citing Consensus's analysis. That requires attribution.
If your institution or journal requires disclosure of AI use. Some venues want to know about any AI involvement in your research process, including literature discovery.
What Actually Needs a Citation
The paper, article, or source itself—always. Using AI to find it doesn't change your obligation to cite the original work.
If you read the abstract through an AI tool but then accessed and read the full paper, cite the full paper normally.
If you only read the AI-generated summary and never accessed the original, that's a problem. You shouldn't cite sources you haven't actually read. More on that below.
The "I Only Read the AI Summary" Problem
This is where things get ethically sticky. AI tools often provide summaries, key findings, or extracted claims from papers. It's tempting to cite the original paper based on that summary alone.
Don't do this.
If you cite a paper, you're representing that you've engaged with and understood that source. Citing based solely on an AI summary means you can't verify the summary is accurate, you might miss context that changes the meaning, and you're essentially citing something you haven't read.
Better options: access the actual paper (Wonders will point you directly to it), use the AI summary to decide if the paper is worth reading, or if you truly can't access it, see our guide on citing sources you can't fully access.
How to Describe AI-Assisted Search in Methods
If you're writing up a formal methodology—for a thesis, systematic review, or publication—here's how to handle it:
"Initial literature discovery was conducted using [Wonders/Elicit/Semantic Scholar], supplemented by manual searches in [databases]. AI-generated summaries were used to screen relevance; all cited sources were read in full."
This is transparent, honest, and increasingly normal in academic writing.
Common Scenarios
You asked ChatGPT for paper recommendations. ChatGPT might hallucinate citations that don't exist. Verify every recommendation actually exists before citing. If the paper is real and you read it, cite the paper—not ChatGPT.
You used Elicit to find papers and extract claims. Cite the papers you actually read. If you used Elicit's extracted data tables in your analysis, mention this in your methods.
You used Consensus to see what "the research says" on a topic. If you're citing Consensus's synthesis (e.g., "According to Consensus, 85% of studies support X"), you need to attribute that to Consensus. If you then read those studies yourself, cite them directly.
You used Semantic Scholar or ResearchRabbit to map a citation network. No citation needed for the tool. Cite the papers you read.
The Verification Step You Can't Skip
AI tools can surface papers that are retracted, misrepresent findings, or simply don't exist (especially ChatGPT). Before citing any source you discovered through AI:
- Confirm the paper exists (check DOI, search the actual journal)
- Access and read the actual source
- Verify the AI's characterization matches what the paper says
- Check if it's been retracted or corrected
This takes time. It's also non-negotiable for credible academic work.
The exact formatting for your citations depends on your required citation style. Check the specific guide for your discipline below.
