[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

[pas]

even the fact that citations are not automatically verified by the journal is crazy, the whole academia and publishing enterprise is an empire built on inefficiency, hubris, and politics (but I'm repeating myself).