PromptVaultCitation lists checked for correction and retraction risk
For analysts verifying whether a source pack still supports the claim attached to it.
Works with
- ChatGPT
- Perplexity
The prompt141 words · 4 blanks
What you fill in
- Sources to verify
[source_list]ExampleDOIs, titles, citations, and links from the evidence pack - Claim under review
[claim]ExampleRemote monitoring reduces 30-day readmission among heart-failure patients - Research field
[field]ExampleClinical and public-health research - Verification date
[as_of_date]Example31 March 2026
How to use it
- 1Open it in PromptVault. Find it in Data & Research, or search for “Citation lists checked for correction and retraction risk”.
- 2Fill in the 4 blanks. sources to verify, claim under review, research field and verification date — the only things the prompt cannot know.
- 3Copy and paste it into ChatGPT. It also works with Perplexity.
About this prompt
“Citation lists checked for correction and retraction risk” is a intermediate data & research prompt. For analysts verifying whether a source pack still supports the claim attached to it. It is 141 words long and written to get a usable answer on the first message, in ChatGPT and Perplexity or any other chat assistant. Good for: sources, audit, research, analysis and deep dive. Like every prompt in PromptVault, it was written and edited in-house, and it works offline once the app is installed.
More data & research prompts
All 50 in Data & Research
A source pack with provenance checks already attachedFor researchers collecting current evidence that can survive citation and origin checks.- Codebook readiness scored before dual codingFor qualitative teams checking whether two coders can apply the same rules independently.
- Has this research claim aged out?For analysts checking whether newer evidence has narrowed, overturned, or strengthened an older claim.
- How defensible are these qualitative findings?For researchers stress-testing thematic claims through a short evidence interview.
- Search strings that survive systematic-review scrutinyFor review teams needing reproducible database syntax rather than a loose list of keywords.
- Sensitive interview text reveals re-identification riskFor researchers screening confidential qualitative material locally before controlled release.