Recently, I was peer reviewing a paper, and it cited one of my papers.
Except... it wasn't anything I had written. The title sounds like something I'd write. It included coauthors I work with, and was in a journal I've published in.
But it wasn't real.
AI is not good for science.
This is very bad but isn't the problem also that they shouldn't cite something they haven't read? Or that they haven't at least downloaded and added to the pile of things they swear they're going to read? they obviously didn't even try to do that
You should not cite something you haven't read
And it's impossible to have read this, because it isn't real.
If you cite something real that you haven't read, someone else can at least trace the citation and find the info in it
right but if they hadn't tried to get away with not reading it, they'd've found out the citation was fake. I mean, assuming they were guilty of that lesser crime and weren't deliberately citing a fake paper.
