LLM – Retraction Watch

Librarian finds ‘preposterous number’ of fake references in paper from Springer Nature journal

As a hospital librarian, Jessica Waite is typically successful at tracking down elusive articles for clinicians at Royal Hallamshire Hospital in England. So when a colleague couldn’t locate two references in a paper and asked for help, the librarian grew suspicious.

“These were recent references, which usually we have no problem finding,” Waite told us. “I looked at the issues of the journals where the article should have been, and there were completely different articles, so I immediately thought that the articles we had been asked to find were not real.”

The references were from an article exploring mental health integration after bowel diversion surgery published in Digestive Diseases and Sciences (DDS), a Springer Nature title.

Correction to a retraction highlights tortured phrases have been around longer than LLMs

Corrections to retractions have also been around longer than AI tools like the one that created this image. *DALL-E*

While large language models are taking the blame for hallucinations, punctuation and all manner of language choices these days, turns of phrase were being tortured well before the arrival of LLMs.

Overlooking that fact seems to have led to a recent correction to a retraction – yes, you read that right – in Sage’s Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology. The original article, published in February 2022, was on detecting coronary artery plaques. It contained several known tortured phrases, synonyms and rephrasings — often awkward and nonsensical — substituted in text to evade plagiarism detectors.

For instance, the paper used the term “cardiovascular breakdown” for “heart failure”; “outward appearance acknowledgement” instead of “face recognition”; and “attractive resonance” for “magnetic resonance.”

Guest post: Forget pickles and ice cream. I published a fake paper on pregnancy cravings for prime numbers

I had grown weary of the constant stream and abuse of spam invitations to submit manuscripts to journals and to attend fake conferences on the other side of the world, a trend extensively studied in academia. The last straw: a solicitation from the Clinical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, well outside my work in mathematics education.

Accepting the challenge, I decided to submit a deliberately nonsensical, AI-generated manuscript in response to observe how the individuals behind these supposed journals operate.

In October 2025, I wrote to someone named Henry Jackson, who had sent the article invitation in August (despite the fact that no such person is listed on the journal’s website). I sent a manuscript generated entirely by ChatGPT to test how far a publication created with zero genuine effort could go and whether there was any filtering mechanism in place to prevent a meaningless article from being published.

Experiment using AI-generated posts on Reddit draws fire for ethics concerns

Note: We’ve published a new story with the University of Zurich’s response, as well as comments from Reddit’s chief legal officer.

An experiment deploying AI-generated messages on a Reddit subforum has drawn criticism for, among other critiques, a lack of informed consent from unknowing participants in the community.

The university overseeing the research is standing by its approval of the study, but has indicated the principal investigator has received a warning for the project.

The subreddit, r/ChangeMyView (CMV), invites people to post a viewpoint or opinion to invite conversation from different perspectives. Its extensive rules are intended to keep discussions civil.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: