Recently, while reviewing a research proposal, I came across a familiar claim: that the use of technology in Japanese language instruction continues to face serious obstacles—chief among them, teachers’ inability to use the tools themselves. The proposal cited “Study A” as the source.

Curious, I tracked down the article. I read it. And I was stunned.

Study A made no mention of teacher incompetence. In fact, it wasn’t even about Indonesia, the country where the proposed research would be conducted.

As a reviewer, my job is not just to check boxes. I am responsible for ensuring that public research funds are awarded to projects built on sound reasoning and honest academic work. So when the interview with the researcher arrived, I came prepared.

I asked, gently, “Have you read Article A?”

The researcher replied, “As far as I remember—yes.”

“Great,” I said, sharing my screen. “Can you show me where the article says what you claimed?”

He looked. Then admitted: “Actually, I haven’t read it.”

How, I asked, did that citation end up in your proposal?

“It was suggested by Mendeley’s auto-citation feature,” he explained.

Let that sink in.

A foundational claim in a government-funded research proposal—inserted not through study, reading, or analysis, but through an AI-generated citation tool.

This is not just sloppiness. It is a breakdown of academic ethics.

Technological tools like Mendeley are meant to aid researchers, not absolve them of responsibility. A citation is not a decorative flourish; it is a scholarly promise. When you cite a work, you are telling your readers—and your reviewers—that you have read it, understood it, evaluated it, and found it relevant.

And even after reading, due diligence doesn’t stop. Is the study valid? Is it outdated? Was it conducted in a comparable context? These are questions every researcher must ask. To cite without reading is not just intellectually lazy—it’s dishonest.

We are living in an era where tools can write, summarize, and even recommend citations. But no machine can substitute for judgment, for care, for integrity. If your bibliography is built by software and not by study, your research is already compromised.

At a time when academic institutions face pressure to produce, publish, and perform, it’s easy to let small shortcuts slide. But small shortcuts, repeated, become normalized malpractice. And eventually, we forget what rigor even looks like.

That’s why we must say it plainly:
Quoting without reading is not an oversight. It is academic fraud.

---