CitateGenie works inside your document like a spell checker for citations. It parses your document, extracts and resolves every citation against 29 authoritative databases, and returns verified results in your preferred style — Chicago, APA, MLA, Vancouver, and more — with full provenance. You stay in control: CitateGenie presents its recommendations and lets you decide. No blackbox. No hallucinations. No copy-paste. No guesswork.
Request Early AccessAuthoritative Databases
Pre-Cached SourceComponents
Citation Styles Supported
Across science, law, and academe, citation errors are endemic — and accelerating.
95.5%
of U.S. court filings contain verified citation errors.
Elliott Ash, “What a Court Doc Audit Reveals about Erroneous Filings,” Law360, April 6, 2026, https://www.law360.com/articles/2457125.
110,000+
publications with invalid AI-generated references in 2025.
Miryam Naddaf and Elizabeth Quill, “Hallucinated Citations Are Polluting the Scientific Literature. What Can Be Done?,” Nature 652, no. 8108 (2026): 26–29, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00969-z.
2,100%
increase in AI-related academic integrity cases in two years.
Payton Mandell, “Academic Dishonesty Cases Decrease amid 157% Rise in AI-Related Reports,” The Daily Athenaeum, October 15, 2025, https://www.thedaonline.com.
56%
of AI-generated citations are fabricated or contain errors.
Jake Linardon, Hannah K. Jarman, Zoe McClure, et al., “Influence of Topic Familiarity and Prompt Specificity on Citation Fabrication in Mental Health Research Using Large Language Models: Experimental Study,” JMIR Mental Health 12 (2025), https://mental.jmir.org/2025/1/e80371.
CitateGenie doesn’t just verify citations. It detects the difference between what you entered and what the canonical record actually says.
When a citation matches nothing in any of 30+ authoritative databases—including CourtListener’s 8,200,000+ opinions—CitateGenie flags it with a clear warning. The case name may sound plausible, but if no canonical record exists, you’ll know before it reaches a filing or a publisher.
A real case name paired with the wrong reporter, volume, or page number is harder to catch than a complete fabrication. CitateGenie compares every detail of the user-submitted citation against the canonical record and surfaces the specific discrepancies—wrong volume, wrong year, wrong page range—so you can correct them before they propagate.
AI-generated legal briefs and research papers routinely contain citations that look right but aren’t. A plausible-sounding case name with fabricated details can survive a casual review. Difference detection turns CitateGenie into a frontline defense against the most dangerous kind of error: the one that almost passes.
User entered:
Calderon-Cardona v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 821 F.3d 161, 169 (2d Cir. 2016)
Canonical record (CourtListener, 100% confidence):
Calderon-Cardona v. Bank of New York Mellon, 770 F.3d 993 (2d Cir., 2014).
Check this case.
Input citation 821 F.3d 161 (2016) does not match verified citation 770 F.3d 993 (2014). The citation details may be hallucinated.
User entered:
Martinez v. Delta Airlines
CitateGenie Warning
CitateGenie could not verify “Martinez v. Delta Airlines” across any of its more than 30 authoritative databases, including CourtListener, which contains more than 8,200,000 precedential opinions. The case may exist but not yet appear in these databases, or the citation details (reporter, volume, or page numbers) may be inaccurate—even if the case name is real.
At 90% accuracy, you check 100%. You can't tell which 10% is wrong without verifying all of it.
Without AI
14 hrs
per manuscript
With AI (ChatGPT)
14 hrs
Faster generation, but 100% still requires verification
Net time saved: Zero.
Time estimate: LeBlanc et al. (2019), cited in Clotworthy et al., BMC Medicine (2023). Full methodology
Four steps from messy citation to verified, formatted output.
Upload your DOCX manuscript or paste any citation fragment — partial author, title, DOI, URL, or even a quotation.
The waterfall engine queries 29 databases in parallel — CrossRef, PubMed, Google Books, CourtListener, and more.
Confidence scoring and retraction checks ensure accuracy. Every field shows its source.
Perfectly formatted citations in 18+ styles. Accept, reject, or edit. You review ranked results with full provenance.
Every other tool handles one citation at a time. CitateGenie resolves an entire manuscript.
Tested across CiteGenie, Cite This For Me, MyBib, Scribbr, QuillBot, Citation Machine, and Aithor.
Upload a manuscript. Every citation is extracted, resolved, and cross-referenced in one pass. Competitors handle one citation at a time.
CrossRef, PubMed, CourtListener, OpenAlex, Google Books, Library of Congress, and 23 more. Competitors use one metadata lookup with no verification.
Every field in every citation shows which database it came from and its confidence score. Competitors show nothing about source or reliability.
CitateGenie compares every detail of a user-submitted citation against canonical records in its databases. When a volume number, reporter, page range, or publication year doesn’t match—or when no matching record exists at all—it flags the discrepancy. Partially hallucinated citations are caught, not just fully fabricated ones.
Ranked recommendations with accept/reject/edit. Never auto-replaces. Accepted results feed back into a human-verified cache.
CitateGenie is a federated search engine. The data exists in the database or it doesn't. No hallucination. No fabrication. No guessing.
Results come from authoritative APIs — CrossRef (150M+ records), PubMed, CourtListener. Not from an LLM's "memory."
Every result comes from an authoritative database lookup. No generative model sits between the query and the answer.
Every citation comes with provenance: database → API → SourceComponent → formatted citation. You see the source. You see the match.
| Capability | Others | CitateGenie |
|---|---|---|
| Process full documents | 0 | |
| Verify against databases | 0 | |
| Per-field provenance | 0 | |
| Retraction detection | 0 | |
| Hallucination detection | 0 |
Out of 8 products tested, April 2026
Usage creates a compounding data advantage that no competitor can replicate.
6,583 landmark cases across 47 jurisdictions. 2,101 US Supreme Court cases. 676 years of legal history. Instant resolution.
Millions of pre-cached papers from OpenAlex. The most-cited articles in science, social science, and humanities resolve instantly.
Join the waitlist for early access.
Request Early Access Read Our Story