[haffi112]

You would think that Springer did the due diligence here, but what is the value of a brand such as Springer if they let these AI slops through their cracks?

This is an opportunity for brands to sell verifiability, i.e., that the content they are selling has been properly vetted, which was obviously not the case here.

[WillAdams]

Back when I was doing academic publishing I'd use a regex to find all the hyperlinks, then a script (written by a co-worker, thanks again Dan!) to determine if they were working or no.

A similar approach should work w/ a DOI.

[RossBencina]

In the past I've had GPT4 output references with valid DOIs. Problem was the DOIs were for completely different (and unrelated) works. So you'd need to retrieve the canonical title and authors for the DOI and cross check it.

[cyclecycle]

A classic case.

I work on Veracity https://groundedai.company/veracity/ which does citation checking for academic publishers. I see stuff like this all the time in paper submissions. Publishers are inundated

[rbanffy]

Don’t publishers ban authors who attempt such shenanigans?

[thoroughburro]

And then make sure the arguments and evidence it presents are as the LLM represented them to be.

[ofjcihen]

At which point it’s more of a hassle to use an LLM than not.

[rixed]

And then check that the cited article was not itself an AI piece that managed to get published.

[bumby]

Not all journals require a DOI link for each reference. Most good ones do seem to have a system to verify the reference exists and is complete; I assume there’s some automation to that process but I’d love to hear from journal editorial staff if that’s really the case.

[cess11]

Why would one think that? All of the big journal publishers have had paper millers and fraudsters and endless amounts of "tortured phrases" under their names for a long, long time.