[jklinger410]

When your entire job is confirming that science is valid, I expect a little more humility when it turns out you've missed a critical aspect.

How did these 100 sources even get through the validation process?

> Isn't disqualifying X months of potentially great research due to a misformed, but existing reference harsh?

It will serve as a reminder not to cut any corners.

[paulmist]

> When your entire job is confirming that science is valid, I expect a little more humility when it turns out you've missed a critical aspect.

I wouldn't call a misformed reference a critical issue, it happens. That's why we have peer reviews. I would contend drawing superficially valid conclusions from studies through use of AI is a much more burning problem that speaks more to the integrity of the author.

> It will serve as a reminder not to cut any corners.

Or yet another reason to ditch academic work for industry. I doubt the rise of scientific AI tools like AlphaXiv [1], whether you consider them beneficial or detrimental, can be avoided - calling for a level pragmatism.

[jklinger410]

> I wouldn't call a misformed reference a critical issue, it happens. That's why we have peer reviews.

Crazy to say this in a discussion where peer review missed hallucinated citations