Cite the original source for any idea, fact, or claim you took from it, even if you first met it in an AI summary. Cite or disclose the AI tool separately when the tool itself shaped your work. APA treats generative AI output as an algorithm’s output with the model as author, and MLA advises citing the tool’s output as a source without treating it as an author.
Creator disclosure: Heni Hazbay creates Summarise Visually and has a direct interest in the app. The citation requirements below come from published style guidance, not from the app.
Publication and evidence note: This guide was prepared from the cited style guidance and reviewed project evidence. Its decision table and fictional examples are editorial tools. Style guides and institutions change their rules; confirm the current instruction that applies to you.
The rule that resolves most cases
An AI summary is not a source. It is a representation of a source, produced by a tool. So two separate obligations apply, and confusing them causes most citation errors.
Attribution answers where the idea came from. If a claim originated in a paper, article, or book, that work is what you cite, and you cite it after reading enough of it to confirm the claim.
Disclosure answers what part the tool played in your work. If a tool summarized, drafted, translated, or restructured material you submitted, your institution may require you to say so, regardless of whether the tool appears in your reference list.
| What happened | What you cite |
|---|---|
| You summarized an article and used its claim | The article |
| You quoted the article | The article, with page or locator |
| You used AI output as evidence or an object of study | The AI tool’s output, per your style guide |
| AI drafted or reorganised your submitted text | Usually a disclosure statement, per your institution |
| You never opened the source the summary described | Nothing yet; read the source first |
That last row is the one that causes trouble. Citing a work you have not read, on the strength of a summary, misrepresents your research whether the summary was written by a person or a model.
APA Style: the model is the author
APA Style’s guidance on citing ChatGPT treats the output of a generative model as the output of an algorithm. The author is the organisation that made the model, the date is the version year, the title is the model name with a descriptive bracket, and the source is the URL of the tool. APA also recommends describing in your text how you used the tool, and notes that because a chat session is not retrievable by other readers, including the prompt and output — often in an appendix — helps readers see what you actually worked with.
The practical consequence for study work: an in-text mention such as describing which tool you used, at what date, for what task, does more for your reader than a bare reference entry. Read APA’s current page before formatting an entry, since the guidance has been revised as the tools changed.
MLA Style: cite the output, not an author
The MLA Style Center advises citing a generative AI tool whenever you paraphrase, quote, or incorporate its output, and recommends against treating the tool as an author. In an MLA works-cited entry the output is described in the title element, with the tool named as the source and the version and date recorded.
MLA also makes the point this guide opens with: you should verify any secondary information the tool produces against a citable source, and cite that source. A model’s account of what a study found is not a substitute for the study.
Disclosure is a separate requirement
UNESCO’s guidance for generative AI in education and research frames institutional use around human agency, transparency, and accountability rather than around any single citation format. In practice, universities, journals, and employers each publish their own rule, and those rules differ on whether AI assistance is permitted at all for a given task.
Before you submit, answer three questions from your own institution’s policy, not from a general guide.
- Is AI assistance permitted for this task, in this form?
- If it is permitted, what must be disclosed, and where?
- Must the prompts and outputs be retained or attached?
A disclosure line that satisfies most study contexts reads plainly: state the tool and version, the date, what it was used for, and what you did to check the result. If assistance is not permitted, no citation format makes it acceptable.
A worked example
Consider a fictional student writing about urban heat islands. This example is illustrative.
They summarize a 2024 journal article with a summarizing app, then use its finding in an essay. They cite the journal article, having read the relevant sections to confirm the finding, its scope, and its stated limits. The app produced a reading aid, not a source.
In a second case, the student wants to discuss how AI tools describe climate research. Here the output is the object of study, so they cite the tool’s output in the form their style guide specifies, and they retain the prompt and response.
In a third case, the student’s department requires a statement whenever AI is used at any stage. They add a disclosure line naming the app, the date, the task, and the checks they ran — and they still cite the journal article.
Keeping a record you can cite from
Current project review supports supplied text, six summary modes, and on-device summary history you can consult when recording what you generated and when. History is a convenience for your own record-keeping; it is not a citable, publicly retrievable source, which is precisely why APA suggests preserving prompts and outputs yourself when they matter.
A workable record for each summarized source keeps the source’s full citation details, the pages or sections covered, the tool and date used, the mode chosen, and the checks you ran against the original. When several sources feed one piece of writing, summarizing multiple sources keeps each claim attributable. The AI summary accuracy checks cover the verification step, and using AI to make study notes covers the wider workflow this record belongs to.
Frequently asked questions
Do I have to cite an AI summary?
You cite the original source for the ideas you use. You cite or disclose the AI tool when its output is itself part of your work or when your institution requires disclosure of assistance.
Can I cite a paper I only read as a summary?
No. Read the relevant part of the paper before citing it. A summary can tell you a paper is worth retrieving; it cannot verify what the paper says.
How do I cite ChatGPT or another model in APA?
APA treats the output as an algorithm’s output: the maker as author, the version year, the model name with a bracketed description, and the tool’s URL, with your use described in the text. Check APA’s current page before formatting, as the guidance has been updated over time.
How do I cite generative AI in MLA?
MLA advises citing the output when you quote, paraphrase, or incorporate it, describing the output in the title element, naming the tool as the source, and recording version and date rather than treating the tool as an author.
Is using an AI summary plagiarism?
Using it without attributing the underlying source, or without disclosing assistance where your institution requires it, can be an academic-integrity breach. Reading a source with the help of a summary, then citing the source you read, is not.
Source and evidence note
The APA approach comes from APA Style’s guidance on citing ChatGPT. The MLA approach comes from the MLA Style Center’s guidance on citing generative AI. The framing of transparency and accountability in educational use comes from UNESCO’s guidance for generative AI in education and research. All three were accessed on July 25, 2026.
The two-obligation model, the decision table, the record fields, and the fictional urban-heat-island example were created for this guide. They are editorial tools, not institutional policy. Product statements reflect current project review; no citation-compliance study was conducted here.
Limits and verification
Style guidance for AI-generated material is being revised as tools change, and this page reflects the guidance as accessed on the date above. Check the current APA and MLA pages, and your own institution’s policy, before you submit.
AI assistance can misattribute a finding to the wrong study or invent a citation entirely, so never copy a reference from generated text into your bibliography without retrieving the work itself. Where your course, journal, or employer prohibits AI assistance for a task, follow that rule; a correctly formatted citation does not make prohibited use permissible.
Publication was authorized by Heni Hazbay after review of the cited sources and current project evidence.