I saw a paper that cite an author like this: "some metric (Smith 1971)".
The author last name was correct, but the year cited should read "2004" instead. Turns out the Smith listed in the bibliography wasn't the smith that invented the 2004 metric from computer science for which he was cited, but another Smith with the same last name from the field of medicine, who wrote a very unrelated paper in 1971 that was referred to. I made the author aware (not mentioning any suspicions of potential LLM involvement...) by email and got told I wasn't the first one to point that out.
Papers like that are now creeping into journals, conference proceedings and online archives, mostly unchecked/unnoticed, which waters down the quality a lot.
The author last name was correct, but the year cited should read "2004" instead. Turns out the Smith listed in the bibliography wasn't the smith that invented the 2004 metric from computer science for which he was cited, but another Smith with the same last name from the field of medicine, who wrote a very unrelated paper in 1971 that was referred to. I made the author aware (not mentioning any suspicions of potential LLM involvement...) by email and got told I wasn't the first one to point that out.
Papers like that are now creeping into journals, conference proceedings and online archives, mostly unchecked/unnoticed, which waters down the quality a lot.
PS: cited author's name changed.