Skip to Main Content
Skip to main content

Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin

Menu Search


Generative AI

Use of standardised referencing styles

Where a student or researcher is required to use a standard referencing style which has specific rules for citing and referencing GenAI, the rules of the citation style should be followed, in addition to acknowledging the use of GenAI as outlined below. This may require the use of in-text citations and reference list entries where the GenAI tool is listed as an author - the two most prominent referencing styles which are in widespread use in Trinity which mandate this are the APA and Chicago.

Acknowledging the use of generative AI in academic work

The use of GenAI must be acknowledged in an ‘Appendix’ or 'Methods' section of any piece of academic work where it has been used as a functional tool to assist in the process of creating academic work.

Minimum requirement to include in acknowledgement:

  • Name and version of the GenAI system used; e.g. Microsoft Copilot (version GPT-4); ChatGPT-3.5
  • Publisher (company that made the |GenAI system); e.g. Microsoft; OpenAI
  • URL of the GenAI system.
  • Brief description (single sentence) of context in which the tool was used.

For example: 

I acknowledge the use of Microsoft Copilot (version GPT-4, Microsoft, https://copilot.microsoft.com) to summarise my initial notes and to proofread my final draft.

Further requirements may be stipulated by a School, academic programme or individual teaching staff, or for a particular assignment, BUT must be made clear to students when an assignment is set. Additional requirements may include expanded description in an ‘Appendix’ or ‘Methods’ section, such as:

  • If relevant, the prompt(s) used to generate a response in the GenAI system.
  • The date the output was generated.
  • The output obtained (e.g. a ‘link to chat’ if ChatGPT, or a compilation of all output generated as an appendix).
  • How the output was changed for use or incorporation into a piece of work (e.g. a tracked-changes document or a descriptive paragraph).

These acknowledgements as an appendix should not be included in the word count of a piece of work, unless stipulated otherwise for a particular assignment or by a particular academic programme or department. The appendix should either be placed at the beginning or end of the document.

In-text citations and inclusion of AI-generated output in a reference list

Some referencing styles suggest that GenAI systems should be cited in a similar way to other sources, most notably personal communications, but there are issues with citing GenAI systems:

  • A GenAI tool cannot be classed as an author – it cannot take responsibility for its work, nor does it generate original ideas but reproduces ideas found elsewhere.
  • A primary function of a reference list is so the reader can refer to the original source, which is not possible with AI generated content.

This proposal therefore favours the approach of most academic publishers (1-3), which stipulates GenAI systems should not be cited as an author nor included as a source in the reference list.

There may be cases where it is appropriate or necessary for a student or researcher to refer to AI-generated output within a piece of work and/or include it in a reference list, e.g. where the piece of work addresses the topic of GenAI and discussion around outputs, where there is reference to a formally published output generated by AI, where it is required by the academic department, or where a student has not identified a primary source of the information despite the issues with relying on GenAI as a secondary source of information (which may be considered poor academic practice). Students are advised to check with their department.

In such cases, the output should be treated as a work with no author, unless specified otherwise by departmental guidelines or the standardised referencing style you are using.

Reference List

  1. Stokel-Walker C. ChatGPT listed as author on research papers. Nature. 2023;613(7945):620-621. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z
  2. Ganjavi C, Eppler MB, Pekcan A, Biedermann B, Abreu A, Collins GS, Gill IS and Cacciamani GE. Publishers’ and journals’ instructions to authors on use of generative artificial intelligence in academic and scientific publishing: Bibliometric analysis. BMJ. 2024;384:e077192. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-077192
  3. Hosseini M, Resnik DB and Holmes K. The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts. Research Ethics. 2023;19(4):449-465. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231180449