PreprintCited by 3Topic ModelingAcademic Writing and PublishingAcademic integrity and plagiarism

Detecting Reference Errors in Scientific Literature with Large Language Models

Open access
Zhang, Tianmai M., Abernethy, Neil F.·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Reference errors, such as citation and quotation errors, are common in scientific papers. Such errors can result in the propagation of inaccurate information, but are difficult and time-consuming to detect, posing a significant challenge to scientific publishing. To support automatic detection of reference errors, this work evaluated the ability of large language models in OpenAI's GPT family to detect quotation errors. Specifically, we prepared an expert-annotated, general-domain dataset of statement-reference pairs from journal articles. Large language models were evaluated in different settings with varying amounts of reference information provided by retrieval augmentation. Our results showed that large language models are able to detect erroneous citations with limited context and without fine-tuning. This study contributes to the growing literature that seeks to utilize artificial intelligence to assist in the writing, reviewing, and publishing of scientific papers. Potential avenues for further improvements in this task are also discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2411.06101

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLMs can detect incorrect or misattributed citations with limited context.

    “A recent study demonstrated that LLMs can detect incorrect or misattributed citations with limited context, offering a valuable layer of quality control for reference accuracy, an area often overlooked during peer review (Zhang and Abernethy, 2024).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Michael F. Armstrong, Joseph H. Conduff III, John E. Fenton, and Daniel H. Coelho. 2018. Reference errors in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery literature. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery , 159(2):249-253.
  2. John C. Buchan, John Norris, and Hannah Kuper. 2005. Accuracy of referencing in the ophthalmic literature. American Journal of Ophthalmology , 140(6):11461148.
  3. Cory L. Cobb, Brianna Crumly, Pablo Montero-Zamora, Seth J. Schwartz, and Charles R. Martínez Jr. 2024. The problem of miscitation in psychological science: Righting the ship. American Psychologist , 79(2):299311.
  4. J. E. Fenton, H. Brazier, A. De Souza, J. P. Hughes, and D. P. McShane. 2000. The accuracy of citation and quotation in otolaryngology/head and neck surgery journals. Clinical Otolaryngology and Allied Sciences , 25(1):40-44.
  5. Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. 2024. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. Computing Research Repository , arXiv:2312.10997. · arXiv
  6. Richard Goldberg, Edward Newton, Julie Cameron, Raymond Jacobson, Linda Chan, W. Richard Bukata, and Amine Rakab. 1993. Reference accuracy in the emergency medicine literature. Annals of Emergency Medicine , 22(9):1450-1454.
  7. Gemini Team Google. 2024. Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models. Computing Research Repository , arXiv:2312.11805. · arXiv
  8. Cameron McR Gosling, Melainie Cameron, and Peter F. Gibbons. 2004. Referencing and quotation accuracy in four manual therapy journals. Manual Therapy , 9(1):36-40.
  9. Helen H. G. Handoll and Greg Atkinson. 2015. Snowballing citations. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) , 351:h6309.
  10. Hannah Jergas and Christopher Baethge. 2015. Quotation accuracy in medical journal articles-a systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ , 3:e1364. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1364 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Ilia Kuznetsov, Osama Mohammed Afzal, Koen Dercksen, Nils Dycke, Alexander Goldberg, Tom Hope, Dirk Hovy, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld, Anne Lauscher, Kevin Leyton-Brown, Sheng Lu, Mausam, Margot Mieskes, Aurélie Névéol, Danish Pruthi, Lizhen Qu, Roy Schwartz, Noah A. Smith, Thamar Solorio, Jingyan Wang, Xiaodan Zhu, Anna Rogers, Nihar B. Shah, and Iryna Gurevych. 2024. What can natural language processing do for peer review? Computing Research Repository , arXiv:2405.06563. · arXiv
  12. Sung Yul Lee and Jong Suk Lee. 1999. A survey of reference accuracy in two asian dermatologic journals (the journal of dermatology and the korean journal of dermatology). International Journal of Dermatology , 38(5):357-360. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-4362.1999.00706.x · DOI · Paper page
  13. Pamela T. M. Leung, Erin M. Macdonald, Matthew B. Stanbrook, Irfan A. Dhalla, and David N. Juurlink. 2017. A 1980 letter on the risk of opioid addiction. The New England Journal of Medicine , 376(22):2194-2195.
  14. Xiangci Li, Gully Burns, and Nanyun Peng. 2021. A paragraph-level multi-task learning model for scientific fact-verification. Computing Research Repository , arXiv:2012.14500. · arXiv
  15. Ivan Kre˘ simir Luki´ c, Anita Luki´ c, Vicko Glun˘ ci´ c, Vedran Katavi´ c, Vladimira Vu˘ cenik, and Ana Maru˘ si´ c. 2004. Citation and quotation accuracy in three anatomy journals. Clinical Anatomy , 17(7):534-539.
  16. Scott A. Mogull. 2017. Accuracy of cited 'facts' in medical research articles: A review of study methodology and recalculation of quotation error rate. PLOS ONE , 12(9):e0184727. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184727 · DOI · Paper page
  17. OpenAI, Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, Red Avila, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Valerie Balcom, Paul Baltescu, Haiming Bao, Mohammad Bavarian, Jeff Belgum, . . . , and Barret Zoph. 2024. Gpt-4 technical report. Computing Research Repository , arXiv:2303.08774. · arXiv
  18. Vedrana Pavlovic, Tracey Weissgerber, Dejana Stanisavljevic, Tatjana Pekmezovic, Ognjen Milicevic, Jelena Milin Lazovic, Andja Cirkovic, Marko Savic, Nina Rajovic, Pavle Piperac, Nemanja Djuric, Petar Madzarevic, Ana Dimitrijevic, Simona Randjelovic, Emilija Nestorovic, Remi Akinyombo, Andrija Pavlovic, Ranine Ghamrawi, Vesna Garovic, and Natasa Milic. 2021. How accurate are citations of frequently cited papers in biomedical literature? Clinical science (London, England: 1979) , 135(5):671-681.
  19. Ronak Pradeep, Xueguang Ma, Rodrigo Nogueira, and Jimmy Lin. 2021. Scientific claim verification with vert5erini. In Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Health Text Mining and Information Analysis , pages 94-103. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  20. Katharine Sanderson. 2024. Science's fake-paper problem: high-profile effort will tackle paper mills. Nature , 626(7997):17-18.
  21. Neal Smith and Aaron Cumberledge. 2020. Quotation errors in general science journals. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 476(2242):20200538.
  22. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. Computing Research Repository , arXiv:2302.13971. · arXiv
  23. David Wadden, Shanchuan Lin, Kyle Lo, Lucy Lu Wang, Madeleine van Zuylen, Arman Cohan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2020. Fact or fiction: Verifying scientific claims. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , pages 7534-7550. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  24. David Wadden, Kyle Lo, Lucy Lu Wang, Arman Cohan, Iz Beltagy, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Multivers: Improving scientific claim verification with weak supervision and full-document context. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022 , pages 61-76. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  25. Kevin Wu, Eric Wu, Ally Cassasola, Angela Zhang, Kevin Wei, Teresa Nguyen, Sith Riantawan, Patricia Shi Riantawan, Daniel E. Ho, and James Zou. 2024. How well do llms cite relevant medical references? an evaluation framework and analyses. Computing Research Repository , arXiv:2402.02008. · arXiv
  26. Zhiwei Zhang, Jiyi Li, Fumiyo Fukumoto, and Yanming Ye. 2021. Abstract, rationale, stance: A joint model for scientific claim verification. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 3580-3586. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, T. M., & Abernethy, N. F.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Volume
2024
Pages
1549-1556
OpenAlex
W4404390880
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1
FWCI
0.89
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
Keywords
citation errors, quotation errors, large language models, GPT, retrieval augmentation, scientific integrity, automatic error detection, biomedical literature
MeSH terms
Large Language Models, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Intelligence, Language, Natural Language Processing, Periodicals as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review