The Provenance Problem: LLMs and the Breakdown of Citation Norms

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.13365v1
• Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 18:01:03 GMT
• Title: The Provenance Problem: LLMs and the Breakdown of Citation Norms
• Authors: Brian D. Earp, Haotian Yuan, Julian Koplin, Sebastian Porsdam Mann,
• Abstract summary: The increasing use of generative AI in scientific writing raises urgent questions about attribution and intellectual credit.<n>We argue that such cases exemplify the 'provenance problem': a systematic breakdown in the chain of scholarly credit.<n>This Perspective analyzes how AI challenges established norms of authorship, introduces conceptual tools for understanding the problem provenance, and proposes strategies to preserve integrity and fairness in scholarly communication.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The increasing use of generative AI in scientific writing raises urgent questions about attribution and intellectual credit. When a researcher employs ChatGPT to draft a manuscript, the resulting text may echo ideas from sources the author has never encountered. If an AI system reproduces insights from, for example, an obscure 1975 paper without citation, does this constitute plagiarism? We argue that such cases exemplify the 'provenance problem': a systematic breakdown in the chain of scholarly credit. Unlike conventional plagiarism, this phenomenon does not involve intent to deceive (researchers may disclose AI use and act in good faith) yet still benefit from the uncredited intellectual contributions of others. This dynamic creates a novel category of attributional harm that current ethical and professional frameworks fail to address. As generative AI becomes embedded across disciplines, the risk that significant ideas will circulate without recognition threatens both the reputational economy of science and the demands of epistemic justice. This Perspective analyzes how AI challenges established norms of authorship, introduces conceptual tools for understanding the provenance problem, and proposes strategies to preserve integrity and fairness in scholarly communication.

Related papers

• Rigor in AI: Doing Rigorous AI Work Requires a Broader, Responsible AI-Informed Conception of Rigor [83.99510317617694]
  We argue that a broader conception of what rigorous AI research and practice should entail is needed.<n>We aim to provide useful language and a framework for much-needed dialogue about the AI community's work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-17T15:44:41Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Could AI Trace and Explain the Origins of AI-Generated Images and Text? [53.11173194293537]
  AI-generated content is increasingly prevalent in the real world.<n> adversaries might exploit large multimodal models to create images that violate ethical or legal standards.<n>Paper reviewers may misuse large language models to generate reviews without genuine intellectual effort.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-05T20:51:54Z)
• Examining Popular Arguments Against AI Existential Risk: A Philosophical Analysis [0.6831861881190009]
  Despite extensive media coverage, skepticism toward the existential risk discourse has received limited rigorous treatment in academic literature.<n>This paper reconstructs and evaluates three common arguments against the existential risk perspective.<n>It aims to provide a foundation for more balanced academic discourse and further research on AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-07T11:15:26Z)
• Suspected Undeclared Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Academic Literature: An Analysis of the Academ-AI Dataset [0.0]
  Academ-AI documents examples of suspected undeclared AI usage in the academic literature. Undeclared AI seems to appear in journals with higher citation metrics and higher article processing charges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T21:29:36Z)
• Using AI Alignment Theory to understand the potential pitfalls of regulatory frameworks [55.2480439325792]
  This paper critically examines the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) Uses insights from Alignment Theory (AT) research, which focuses on the potential pitfalls of technical alignment in Artificial Intelligence. As we apply these concepts to the EU AI Act, we uncover potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement in the regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:38:38Z)
• Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges [16.35265384114857]
  The rapid advancements of Large Language Models (LLMs) have blurred the lines between human and machine authorship.<n>This literature review serves a roadmap for researchers and practitioners interested in understanding the state of the art in this rapidly evolving field.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T17:58:49Z)
• Beyond principlism: Practical strategies for ethical AI use in research practices [0.0]
  The rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence in scientific research has outpaced the development of ethical guidelines.<n>Existing approaches offer little practical guidance for addressing ethical challenges of AI in scientific research practices.<n>I propose a user-centered, realism-inspired approach to bridge the gap between abstract principles and day-to-day research practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-27T03:53:25Z)
• Using Generative AI for Literature Searches and Scholarly Writing: Is the Integrity of the Scientific Discourse in Jeopardy? [0.0]
  We document the ongoing discussion in the science community with a review of news articles, editorials, and position statements by major scientific publishers. We provide a brief overview of potentially useful capabilities and sensible applications of ChatGPT and similar AI tools for purposes of scholarly writing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-07T23:31:24Z)
• A Critical Examination of the Ethics of AI-Mediated Peer Review [0.0]
  Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) systems offer promise and peril for scholarly peer review. Human peer review systems are also fraught with related problems, such as biases, abuses, and a lack of transparency. The legitimacy of AI-driven peer review hinges on the alignment with the scientific ethos.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T18:14:10Z)
• Identifying and Mitigating the Security Risks of Generative AI [179.2384121957896]
  This paper reports the findings of a workshop held at Google on the dual-use dilemma posed by GenAI. GenAI can be used just as well by attackers to generate new attacks and increase the velocity and efficacy of existing attacks. We discuss short-term and long-term goals for the community on this topic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T18:51:09Z)
• Towards CausalGPT: A Multi-Agent Approach for Faithful Knowledge Reasoning via Promoting Causal Consistency in LLMs [55.66353783572259]
  Causal-Consistency Chain-of-Thought harnesses multi-agent collaboration to bolster the faithfulness and causality of foundation models.<n>Our framework demonstrates significant superiority over state-of-the-art methods through extensive and comprehensive evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T04:59:21Z)
• Metaethical Perspectives on 'Benchmarking' AI Ethics [81.65697003067841]
  Benchmarks are seen as the cornerstone for measuring technical progress in Artificial Intelligence (AI) research. An increasingly prominent research area in AI is ethics, which currently has no set of benchmarks nor commonly accepted way for measuring the 'ethicality' of an AI system. We argue that it makes more sense to talk about 'values' rather than 'ethics' when considering the possible actions of present and future AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T14:36:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.