Forgetting authors, misspelling them or the journals, putting a wrong digit etc... could be citation typos. I don't see how you add 5 non-existing authors and put a different—but conceptually plausible—journal in the bibtex.
Besides, I would think most people are using bibliographic managers like Zotero&co..., which will pull metadata through DOIs or such.
The errors look a lot more like what happens when you ask an LLM for some sources on xyz.
If a person usually uses Zotero to manage literature and finds incomplete metadata when exporting BibTeX, and with the submission deadline approaching, they use GPT to complete the metadata, leading to errors, this is indeed lazy and negligent behavior. But is it what many call deceitful and unforgivable?
I believe that once this person realizes the unreliability of using GPT to complete metadata, they will no longer use such methods in the future.
I also look forward to the community's dedicated individuals developing more comprehensive automated export tools, as copying and pasting one by one is inherently tedious and should be automated.
Currently, these individuals used incorrect automated tools and placed excessive trust in them, resulting in errors. This is a profound lesson that must never be repeated.
I think it's not uncommon to ask an LLM for the bibtex for a paper you know about, & it might mess it up, but that doesn't feel like a fireable offense
Yes. If you're curious and willing to spend ca. half an hour on the question, I can recommend this excellently done video from the channel 'fern': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHsONupIdlo
It seems like it's being done entirely on the publisher end, with them – or friends – benefiting:
> For example, a single researcher who was associated with Technoscience Academy benefited from more than 3,000 additional illegitimate citations. Some journals from the same publisher benefited from a couple hundred additional sneaked citations.
Perhaps this publisher or others also offer this as some kind of backroom deal / service.
Ah, really? My feeling (in Berlin) has always been that because of its grip on CDJs, Rekordbox dominates.
But this is a quite unfortunate, at least on my MBP 2014, Rekordbox (and Mixxx, mentioned elsewhere in the thread) send the fans into overdrive immediately while quickly becoming sluggish (just about the last thing you want from a tool for DJing), while Traktor keeps things quiet and responsive.
If I elect someone to lead the country for 4 years, I’d prefer they lead the country for at least 3.75 of those years, not for two 4-6 month stints in 4 years.
> For the same reason I'm not a fan of tabs in browsers.
I _really_ wish there were a proper integration of tabs into window-switching shortcuts... like some kind of modifier. It would be excellent to be able to transition smoothly between 1) Application switching 2) Window switching 3) Tab switching. 1) -> 2) works on Mac OS with cmd + tab, down arrow when you reach the application, and then arrows to navigate... but it would be great to drill down into tabs in a nice way from there. Or even directly from application switching to tab switching, since one can quickly forget exactly which window a particular tab is in.
Witch (https://manytricks.com/witch/) has an option that allows you to treat tabs as if they’re windows, but over time I’ve found Witch more and more buggy and gave up on using it, which is such a shame.
Besides, I would think most people are using bibliographic managers like Zotero&co..., which will pull metadata through DOIs or such.
The errors look a lot more like what happens when you ask an LLM for some sources on xyz.