2026-08-31T03:29:14Z https://yabu.me Virginia Conde https://yabu.me/npub13rmv3evq02q0qg5lth0vmhd0efm7dk5da5c40s42u57psx28lm6spdcrzr https://fediscience.org/system/accounts/avatars/109/330/283/980/368/254/original/b79f76f6e6bdfc9c.jpg https://fediscience.org/system/accounts/avatars/109/330/283/980/368/254/original/b79f76f6e6bdfc9c.jpg https://yabu.me/nevent1qqsqf2w8ljgua5av2s8qy4kmsxc0ayhmlj6h0wfypnnjwu0zfwhwwcszyzy0dj89spagpupznawaanwa4l980ek63hknz47z4tjncxqegll02ve9a34 In reply to <a href='/nevent1qqs9dkz5xwxada3t8zvhpkjavy4g7etftfgymuw7gzplkcku3ec36hskadx40'>nevent1q…dx40</a><br/>_________________________<br/><br/>yes, precisely; there is an issue with the order of events, which at the very least should be iterative -- I write a draft of something / an idea / a guess, wonder if someone has looked into this, search for studies, read/skim articles, inform my idea/guess, reshape my writing.<br/><br/>The alternative is to write something I believe / guess / reason, but because I&#39;m writing an *academic article*, I need to make it look like one, so I plaster it with references that seemingly support my assertions (but that I haven&#39;t read).<br/><br/>A lot of this discussion seems to circle around whether the references are fake or whether they do exist. But a reference &#34;existing&#34; is not enough if the author hasn&#39;t engaged with the text in any capacity, or if it hasn&#39;t informed their thinking and reasoning in any way. At this point it ceases to be an academic approach and turns into mere aesthetics.<br/><br/>It is very easy for a GPT model to provide a reference as an output to a prompt, many of which do exist, while still misattributing information that is not supported by said reference. The only way to ascertain whether a reference has been correctly attributed is to know what the article contains; but if you already know the reference and have engaged with its contents, you wouldn&#39;t really need for a GPT model to do that work for you. If you need to check all references for accuracy and relevance anyway, then how does using a GPT model (instead of, say, Scopus, or Web of science) save you time? 2026-07-18T09:49:31Z https://yabu.me/nevent1qqs89f2hr6qwnlxpnr8wq7yc0m4j59gx5xdw5q0h32ns8epn604us3szyzy0dj89spagpupznawaanwa4l980ek63hknz47z4tjncxqegll0254ua7e In reply to <a href='/nevent1qqsxt4nyd2gkwtyqye6g8k2jnd5w77dd6tggj3s6wzkjsmm6ruf8ljqfhagnm'>nevent1q…agnm</a><br/>_________________________<br/><br/>this is definitely a problem in and of itself; particularly if the references were only added *after the fact* (the writing) and not used as an a priori to support claims or assertions. <br/><br/>Part of the problem is that *even if the references do exist* (&#34;the links go were they&#39;re supposed to&#34;) there&#39;s still a big risk of misattribution and misreferencing when following this approach.<br/><br/>I&#39;ve tested this myself with my own article to see if GPT4o and GPT5o would refer to my study through a relevant prompt; in one case, it didn&#39;t refer to the study at all (even though it has 250+ citations to date, and it&#39;s from 2019), in the other, it referred to the study but got the methods/approach wrong (I later found out that those methods belonged to a different publication, not mine).<br/><br/>Long-story short, if all the references were known *a priori* by the author and it was a case of mere retrieval, I could see how it&#39;d be less of a problem (still weird to use GPT for this given we already have accurate search engines for this purpose). <br/><br/>If the author was using GPT to *search* for references they were not already familiar with, and doing this a posteriori once they had already written the piece (so, an a posteriori add-on of study references to support claims already made), then it is a big, big issue. 2026-07-18T07:51:31Z