Frequently Asked Questions

It helps detect AI-fabricated references, verifies references against open academic databases, and formats verified references in your selected citation style. Results are decision support; manually review yellow and red results.

Put each reference on a separate line. Numbered lists are supported. You can also upload a .txt, .docx or .pdf file, or drag and drop the file onto the input area.

Yes. .txt, .docx and .pdf files are supported. For a full article, the tool tries to extract the References/Bibliography section. Scanned or image-only PDFs may not contain selectable text and therefore may not be readable.

Green (Verified): a strong, consistent academic record match was found. Yellow (Unverified): no certain match was found; this does not mean fabricated. Red (Suspicious): strong risk signals such as a wrong/dead DOI or author-year-title conflicts were found. No color is an absolute verdict.

No. Green means the tool found a strong and consistent record match; it is not an absolute guarantee. For critical work, also verify the DOI and publisher or journal page.

No. Red indicates strong conflicts or risk signals. The reference may be mistyped, have a wrong DOI or be affected by incomplete database records. Verify it manually using the DOI, journal page, Google Scholar or DergiPark.

The tool does not mark a reference green unless it finds a sufficiently strong match using the title, authors, year and DOI. Very new publications, national or niche journals, books, theses and conference papers may not appear in major indexes and can therefore be marked yellow even when real.

The score measures how consistently the title, authors, publication year, DOI and academic records match. A score of 88/100 indicates a strong match; it does not mean the reference has an 88% probability of being real. Evaluate it together with the color and warnings.

The tool found a similar academic record but is not confident enough that it is your reference. Compare the title, authors, year and DOI; ignore the suggestion if it is not correct.

The authenticity check compares the reference with academic database records. The format check examines punctuation, author order and fields against the selected style, such as APA or IEEE. A format issue does not mean the reference is fabricated.

Automatically correcting an unverified record could insert the wrong source into your bibliography. Only green verified references are formatted automatically; verify yellow and red results manually first.

The selected style does not change the verification result; it changes the corrected bibliography below. If you upload APA references and select IEEE, the corrected version, copied text and corrected CSV field are produced in IEEE style.

More than 20 styles are supported, including APA, Vancouver, IEEE, TÜBİTAK, TÜSEB, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, AMA, ACS, Nature, Science, Cell, The Lancet, BMJ and PLOS. For custom format, verify references first, enter an example reference or rules, then press Apply custom format.

The CSV includes each reference's status, raw reference, matched title, DOI and, for verified references only, the corrected output in the selected style.

Yes. The tool can search using the title, authors and publication year. However, a DOI is strong verification evidence, so references without a DOI or with incomplete details are more likely to be marked yellow.

Partly. The tool is strongest for journal articles. Books, theses, conference papers and national publications may not be covered by the databases and may be marked yellow even when real.

CrossRef, OpenAlex and Semantic Scholar are used for general article search, PubMed for biomedical publications, and DBLP for computer science; references containing an arXiv identifier are resolved through Semantic Scholar. DOI resolution and ISSN/journal verification are also used, with CORE open-access search as a last resort.

Temporary network, rate-limit or database outages can occur. Try again after a few minutes. Other databases may still work, but a failed query can reduce verification strength, so check the result manually through its DOI, Google Scholar or DergiPark.

Uploaded files are read in your browser and are not uploaded to our server. Bibliography text is not stored. Some searches, such as CrossRef and OpenAlex, run directly from the browser; PubMed, DBLP, ISSN/journal verification and last-resort CORE searches send the required title or ISSN through our server without storing it.

Use the 'Is this result wrong? Send feedback' button on the result card. Including the correct DOI or a short explanation helps us review it.

Guests can check up to 5 references per query. Free members can check up to 20 per query and 30 references per day. Pro usage is unlimited; see the Pricing page for current prices.

Author search finds a researcher's real publications in a specific field from the OpenAlex database and lets you add the ones you pick to your bibliography in one click, in the citation style you want (APA 7, IEEE, Vancouver, TÜBİTAK, TÜSEB and 20+ CSL styles). It has three steps: find and select the right author, enter a topic/field, then check the works you like and format them. You can reach the tool from the top menu or directly at /en/author-search.

Results come directly from the OpenAlex academic database; they are not generated by AI. The listed publications are therefore real records with no risk of fabricated (hallucinated) sources. Still, because different authors can share the same name, it is important to pick the right author by institution, ORCID and publication count.

When you search a name, people sharing that name are listed separately. You can tell them apart by institution (university/institute), ORCID identifier, total publication count and citations. Fill in the 'Institution' field in the search box to narrow the results from the start.

When you type a topic, literature search scans publications in that field from the OpenAlex academic database and surfaces the field's publications-per-year, prominent sub-topics, trend and most-cited sources. It also presents candidate research gaps, concept-intersection signals and a theme map. It is meant for quickly understanding a field, gathering sources and generating ideas for your novelty (gap) statement when starting a thesis or paper. Reach it from the top menu or directly at /en/literature-search.

The tool presents gaps as 'candidates', each with its grounding; it does not give a verdict. Every candidate gap has a label: 'from review' (explicitly stated by a review article, most reliable), 'from data' (a counted signal) or 'inferred' (most speculative). The numbers next to a claim link to supporting sources. A real gap must still be confirmed through systematic review and your own domain expertise; the tool is an accelerator, not an oracle.

The feature requires an account but is free. New members get unlimited searches for the first 2 months; after that, 3 searches per day. Beyond that, a Pro membership is required. Repeating the same search does not consume your quota again.