Professor used AI to fabricate sources, found guilty of scientific dishonesty

Professor Hans Bonde, a sports historian at the University of Copenhagen, has been formally accused of scientific dishonesty for employing artificial intelligence to create fictional text passages and sources within a research paper. The Council for Scientific Dishonesty issued its conclusion in May 2025, finding that Bonde had acted with gross negligence by fabricating these elements.

The council's unanimous decision, as reported by Kristeligt Dagblad, stated that Bonde had constructed the disputed fictional text and references through his use of AI. The council deemed it "undisputed" that Bonde had included ten instances of fictitious text and source references in the introduction of his article.

“

Under consideration of the character and scope of the individual cases as well as the respondent's position on the matter, the council finds that the respondent (Hans Bonde) has, at least through gross negligence - by using AI - constructed the fictional text passages and references in question.

While Bonde admits to making mistakes, he contests the council's ruling, arguing that his actions do not constitute dishonesty. He has appealed the decision, but his appeal was reportedly rejected due to a lack of new information. Scientific dishonesty is defined as intentional or grossly negligent fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in the planning, execution, or reporting of research.

Bonde himself described the fabricated texts and sources as "obviously fictional" and "absurd" AI hallucinations. He communicated to the newspaper that his error had no potential to cause harm because the fictional nature of the content was apparent. He also noted that this was his first experience using AI in a research context. University of Copenhagen leadership declined to comment on whether the ruling has had any consequences for Bonde, citing the matter as a personnel issue. Bonde reportedly retired shortly before the council's decision was finalized.

“

My mistake had no possibility of causing harm, because one could see that it was pure fiction.