Citation Verification
Language models (and tired humans) produce references that look right but are not: plausible titles that were never published, real DOIs attached to the wrong paper, wrong years, invented co-authors. Citing a paper that does not exist can lead to desk rejection, a correction, or a misconduct inquiry. This skill makes verification systematic.
Non-negotiable rules
- Never write a reference from memory. Every entry must come from a retrievable record (Crossref, OpenAlex, arXiv, PubMed, publisher page).
- A reference is verified only when its identifier resolves to a record whose title, first author and year all match. A resolving DOI alone proves nothing.
- If you cannot verify a reference, say so. Mark it
% UNVERIFIEDin the.bib, tell the user, and never quietly keep it. - Verify the claim too: open the abstract or the cited section and confirm the paper actually supports the sentence citing it.
Workflow
bashexport CROSSREF_MAILTO=you@university.edu # polite pool: faster, fewer rate limits python scripts/verify_citations.py references.bib --json citation-report.json python scripts/verify_citations.py --doi 10.1038/nature14539 10.1126/science.aaa8415 python scripts/verify_citations.py references.bib --keys smith2020,li2023 # re-check a subset
Each entry gets a status:
| Status | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
verified | Identifier resolves; title/author/year agree | None |
found-add-doi | No DOI in the entry, but an unambiguous match exists | Add the suggested doi field |
mismatch | DOI resolves to a different work, or year/author disagree | Fix from the record, or find the intended paper |
doi-not-found | DOI does not resolve anywhere | Typo or fabricated: search by title |
uncertain | Title matches but year/author disagree, or only a weak title match | Check manually (reprints, errata, homonymous papers) |
not-found | No plausible match in Crossref, OpenAlex or arXiv | Treat as fabricated until proven otherwise (grey literature, theses and reports may legitimately be absent) |
Exit code 0 means everything is verified or only missing DOIs; 1 means something needs a human.
Handling the hard cases
- Conference papers without DOIs (NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, many CS venues): the script
falls back to arXiv. Cite the proceedings version with a
urlto the official proceedings page, and optionally keepeprintfor the arXiv ID. - Preprint vs published: if both exist, cite the peer-reviewed version unless the venue asks otherwise. OpenAlex links versions of the same work.
- Books and chapters: check ISBN via the publisher or Open Library. Crossref covers many but not all.
- Datasets and software: verify DataCite DOIs (
https://api.datacite.org/dois/{doi}) or Zenodo/Software Heritage identifiers. - Retractions: check each DOI against Retraction Watch data (in Crossref as
update-to/relationmetadata) and never cite a retracted paper as support. - Non-English or old literature: absence from these indexes is common. Confirm via library catalogs and document the source.
Reporting to the user
Summarize as a table: key, status, problem, and the fix you applied or propose.
Apply only mechanical fixes automatically (adding a DOI for a found-add-doi
match). Anything mismatch, uncertain or not-found requires the user's
confirmation because only they know which paper they meant to cite.
Related skills
bibtex-hygiene: duplicates, missing fields, capitalization and formatting in the.bibfile.citation-management: finding and exporting references from literature databases.literature-review: systematic searching and screening.
