Skip to content
Review

Hallucinations in large language models within academic contexts: a systematic review

Jul 2026 · Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management · pp. 1-28 · 0 citations · 63 references

TL;DR

The findings indicate that hallucinations systematically compromise academic writing quality, distort assessment processes and undermine epistemic trust in scholarly outputs, leading to an integrated conceptual perspective linking hallucinations to epistemic risk, information integrity and digital trust.

Abstract

This study aims to examine the phenomenon of hallucinations in large language models (LLMs) within academic contexts, focusing on their manifestations, causes and implications for academic integrity, research quality and responsible artificial intelligence adoption in higher education. A systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Searches across Scopus, Web of Science and Emerald Insight databases using keywords related to AI hallucination and academic applications, of which 25 peer-reviewed journal articles met the inclusion criteria. Qualitative thematic analysis was performed using NVivo 14 to synthesise evidence on hallucination types, academic applications, impacts and mitigation strategies. Six recurring types of hallucinations were identified, with fabricated or inaccurate citations emerging as the most prevalent. The findings indicate that hallucinations systematically compromise academic writing quality, distort assessment processes and undermine epistemic trust in scholarly outputs. Variation in hallucination rates across models and disciplines highlights their context-dependent nature. Key contributing factors include probabilistic text generation, limitations in training data, insufficient contextual understanding and the absence of robust verification mechanisms. It further contributes a structured classification of hallucination types and a multi-layered governance approach to inform institutional policy and responsible AI adoption. Addressing hallucinations in academic knowledge production is essential for preserving public trust in higher education and safeguarding the societal value of scholarly research. This study advances existing knowledge by developing an integrated conceptual perspective linking hallucinations to epistemic risk, information integrity and digital trust.

View source

Similar papers

Conference Open access 2026

AI Hallucinations in Academic Writing and Addresses

The study reveals that AI hallucinations have three kinds of manifestations, which include content distortion, evidence failure and improper argumentation, which comprises factual error, false or irrelevant citation, and superficially coherent arguments lacking evidence.

Yichen Liu · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

Hallucination Rate of Peer-Reviewed Citations Generated by Large Language Models in Neurocritical Care

Under standardized zero-shot, retrieval-disabled web-interface conditions, LLMs generated substantial numbers of inaccurate and fabricated NCC citations, which should be verified across reliable databases before use in clinical, educational, or scholarly work.

Ali Seifi, A. Seyfi · 0 citations
Sep 2026

A Q Methodology Study: Exploring Attitudes Toward “AI Hallucinations” in Human–AI Collaborative Academic Writing in Higher Education

This study investigates the subjective perspectives and evaluative orientations of university students when navigating AI hallucinations during human–AI collaborative writing and offers empirical material for formulating tentative, data-informed pedagogical hypotheses concerning different patterns of epistemic and cogn...

Yu-Peng Guo, Ting Huang, Sheng-Chen Yue et al. · 0 citations
Review

Survey of AI Hallucinations and Mitigation Survey of AI Hallucinations and Mitigation

A structured survey of AI hallucinations, synthesizing prior research to clarify their evolving definitions, underlying causes, and implications for Information Systems positions AI hallucinations as socio-technical phenomena with direct implications for trust, decision-making, and governance.

R. Thompson, Navid Hashemi · 0 citations
#generative ai Review Open access Sep 2026

Reliability Risks of Generative AI in Education: A Systematic Review of Hallucinations, Misinformation, Overreliance, and Assessment Validity

The findings reveal a paradox of fluent unreliability: AI-generated errors are often indistinguishable from accurate content, and this risk is inversely distributed with student competence.

Ismail Kasarci · 0 citations
Review Open access Sep 2026

Performance and Hallucination Analysis of Large Language Models on European Anesthesiology Examinations: Cross-Sectional Comparative Study

Current-generation LLMs demonstrated consistently high performance across multiple European anesthesiology examinations but continue to produce clinically relevant hallucinations, supporting their role as supervised educational tools rather than autonomous learning resources.

Ș. Andrei, Thibault Giet, Alexis Belouard et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.