Citation Verification
Verify references before you trust them. Citation Verification is a citation checker that resolves scholarly identifiers (DOI, PMID, PMCID, arXiv, ISBN) and many publisher URLs against public metadata sources, then labels each item conservatively (VERIFIED, RETRACTED, HALLUCINATED, or NEEDS REVIEW). It also supports film/movie references via IMDb IDs and movie-style citation lines (best-effort). Use it to spot broken links, mismatched records, duplicate/incorrect references, and retraction signals before you submit a paper, publish a blog post, or share a bibliography. For best accuracy, paste one identifier or URL per line. If a source can’t be resolved reliably, the tool won’t guess—it marks it for review so you can verify the reference manually.
Learn more
About
Citation Verification is a due-diligence tool for verifying references. It resolves identifiers (DOI, PMID, PMCID, arXiv, NCT, ISBN) and many URLs to public records, then summarizes what was found.
How it works
Provide identifiers (DOI/PMID/PMCID/arXiv/NCT/ISBN/IMDb) or URLs. The tool attempts to resolve each item and returns a status with supporting details when available.
For enterprise-style workflows, the tool is intentionally conservative and audit-friendly: if evidence is incomplete it will mark an item for review rather than guessing, and it surfaces notes/warnings to explain what it used and what was missing.
- Resolves identifiers using public metadata sources
- Flags retraction signals when detected
- Supports preprints (arXiv) and open-access links when available
- Supports ClinicalTrials.gov registrations via NCT IDs
- Supports movies/films via IMDb (best-effort)
- Marks uncertain matches for manual review (no guessing)
Result interpretation
VERIFIED means the identifier resolved to a matching record. RETRACTED indicates a retraction signal for the resolved record. HALLUCINATED indicates the identifier did not resolve to a credible record. NEEDS REVIEW is used when the tool cannot be confident enough to label the item.
An “ambiguous” outcome is a form of NEEDS REVIEW: evidence is incomplete or non-unique (multiple plausible matches, vague citation strings, or conflicting metadata). It means “needs human judgment,” not “false.”
Use cases
Use it when you inherit a bibliography, review a manuscript, or want an automated first pass before manual verification.
- Manuscript submission checks
- Reference list clean-up
- Editorial/peer-review workflows
Limitations
Best results come from stable identifiers (DOI/PMID/PMCID/arXiv/ISBN). Some URLs won’t expose stable metadata, and some sources are not indexed. Film/movie resolution is best-effort and may require manual confirmation. Always confirm the citation supports the specific claim and context.
Best practices
Treat statuses as triage. For important items, open the resolved record and compare authors/title/year with your citation and the claim you are making.
Related reading
FAQ
What does VERIFIED mean?
How do I verify academic references quickly?
What does RETRACTED mean?
Can it check if a paper is retracted?
Can it verify PMCID (PMC...) citations?
Can it verify arXiv citations?
Can it verify ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT...) citations?
Can it verify movie/film citations?
How do I cite a film or movie in APA/MLA/Chicago?
What if I do not have a DOI?
Can it verify books (ISBN citations)?
Integrity and privacy
- Resolves citations when possible and prefers “needs review” over confident-sounding guesses.
- Retraction signals are surfaced as warnings, not as a substitute for reading the source.
- Inputs are sent to the API to compute results. Avoid pasting sensitive personal data.
- For internal or confidential work, use minimal excerpts and verify using original sources.