[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.

[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.