sciwrite-lint: Verification Infrastructure for the Age of Science Vibe-Writing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.08501v1
• Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2026 17:46:44 GMT
• Title: sciwrite-lint: Verification Infrastructure for the Age of Science Vibe-Writing
• Abstract summary: Science currently offers two options for quality assurance, both inadequate.<n>We propose a third option: measure the paper itself.<n> sciwrite-lint is an open-source linter for scientific manuscripts that runs entirely on the researcher's machine.<n>We evaluate the pipeline on 30 unseen papers from arXiv and bioRxiv with error injection and LLM-adjudicated false positive analysis.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Science currently offers two options for quality assurance, both inadequate. Journal gatekeeping claims to verify both integrity and contribution, but actually measures prestige: peer review is slow, biased, and misses fabricated citations even at top venues. Open science provides no quality assurance at all: the only filter between AI-generated text and the public record is the author's integrity. AI-assisted writing makes both worse by producing more papers faster than either system can absorb. We propose a third option: measure the paper itself. sciwrite-lint (pip install sciwrite-lint) is an open-source linter for scientific manuscripts that runs entirely on the researcher's machine (free public databases, a single consumer GPU, and open-weights models) with no manuscripts sent to external services. The pipeline verifies that references exist, checks retraction status, compares metadata against canonical records, downloads and parses cited papers, verifies that they support the claims made about them, and follows one level further to check cited papers' own bibliographies. Each reference receives a per-reference reliability score aggregating all verification signals. We evaluate the pipeline on 30 unseen papers from arXiv and bioRxiv with error injection and LLM-adjudicated false positive analysis. As an experimental extension, we propose SciLint Score, combining integrity verification with a contribution component that operationalizes five frameworks from philosophy of science (Popper, Lakatos, Kitcher, Laudan, Mayo) into computable structural properties of scientific arguments. The integrity component is the core of the tool and is evaluated in this paper; the contribution component is released as experimental code for community development.

Related papers

• PaperDoctor: Evidence-Grounded and Actionable Feedback for Scientific Papers in Progress [130.58520199343707]
  PaperDoctor is an agent framework for pre-submission feedback with three key innovations.<n>First, a holistic hierarchical framework evaluates writing, layout, references, code, theory, prior work, and experiments.<n>Second, each finding contains an observation, a pointer to specific evidence such as a sentence, equation, or code line, and a revision suggestion.<n>Third, PaperDoctor selectively rebuilds and reruns experiments based on claim importance and compute budget.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T11:08:11Z)
• Unfolding Scientific Papers into Multi-Turn Generation Trajectories for Continued Pre-Training [45.97752484594236]
  We present a pipeline that unfolds each paper into a multi-turn generation trajectory.<n>All section texts and the abstract are kept verbatim from the source paper.<n>Treating real paper text as the answer yields an SFT dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-26T14:06:29Z)
• LECTOR: Joint Optimization of Scientific Reasoning Graphs and Introduction Generation [57.70907667652966]
  Introduction writing is especially challenging, which demands logical soundness and verifiable faithfulness.<n>Most AI-assisted methods treat the task as text generation instead of reasoning and structuring, leading to severe drawbacks.<n>We propose LECTOR, a novel Logic-Expression Co-Reinforcement Learning framework that can strictly follow the scientist's logic, add high-quality citations and keep structured expressions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-25T15:41:16Z)
• Paper Circle: An Open-source Multi-agent Research Discovery and Analysis Framework [82.66443886385125]
  Paper Circle is a discovery and analysis system designed to reduce the effort required to find, assess, organize, and understand academic literature.<n>The system comprises two complementary pipelines: (1) a Discovery Pipeline that integrates offline and online retrieval from multiple sources, multi-agent scoring, diversity-aware ranking, and structured outputs; and (2) an Analysis Pipeline that transforms individual papers into structured knowledge graphs with typed nodes such as concepts, methods, and figures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T17:59:58Z)
• FactReview: Evidence-Grounded Reviews with Literature Positioning and Execution-Based Claim Verification [57.196748998757954]
  We present FactReview, an evidence-grounded reviewing system that combines claim extraction, literature positioning, and execution-based claim verification.<n>Given a submission, FactReview identifies major claims and reported results, retrieves nearby work to clarify the paper's technical position, and, when code is available, executes the released repository.<n>It then produces a concise review and an evidence report that assigns each major claim one of five labels: Supported, Supported by the paper, Partially supported, In conflict, or Inconclusive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-05T11:45:22Z)
• CiteAudit: You Cited It, But Did You Read It? A Benchmark for Verifying Scientific References in the LLM Era [51.63024682584688]
  Large language models (LLMs) introduce a new risk: fabricated references that appear plausible but correspond to no real publications.<n>We present the first comprehensive benchmark and detection framework for hallucinated citations in scientific writing.<n>Our framework significantly outperforms prior methods in both accuracy and interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T19:17:39Z)
• OpenNovelty: An LLM-powered Agentic System for Verifiable Scholarly Novelty Assessment [63.662126457336534]
  OpenNovelty is an agentic system for transparent, evidence-based novelty analysis.<n>It grounds all assessments in retrieved real papers, ensuring verifiable judgments.<n>OpenNovelty aims to empower the research community with a scalable tool that promotes fair, consistent, and evidence-backed peer review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-04T15:48:51Z)
• BadScientist: Can a Research Agent Write Convincing but Unsound Papers that Fool LLM Reviewers? [21.78901120638025]
  We investigate whether fabrication-oriented paper generation agents can deceive multi-model LLM review systems.<n>Our generator employs presentation-manipulation strategies requiring no real experiments.<n>Despite provably sound aggregation mathematics, integrity checking systematically fails.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-20T18:37:11Z)
• Cracking Double-Blind Review: Authorship Attribution with Deep Learning [43.483063713471935]
  We propose a transformer-based, neural-network architecture to attribute an anonymous manuscript to an author. We leverage all research papers publicly available on arXiv amounting to over 2 million manuscripts. Our method achieves an unprecedented authorship attribution accuracy, where up to 73% of papers are attributed correctly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-14T15:50:24Z)
• arXivEdits: Understanding the Human Revision Process in Scientific Writing [17.63505461444103]
  We provide a complete computational framework for studying text revision in scientific writing. We first introduce arXivEdits, a new annotated corpus of 751 full papers from arXiv with gold sentence alignment across their multiple versions of revision. It supports our data-driven analysis to unveil the common strategies practiced by researchers for revising their papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-26T22:50:24Z)
• Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing? [89.50052670307434]
  We discuss the possibility of using state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models to generate first-pass peer reviews for scientific papers. We collect a dataset of papers in the machine learning domain, annotate them with different aspects of content covered in each review, and train targeted summarization models that take in papers to generate reviews. Comprehensive experimental results show that system-generated reviews tend to touch upon more aspects of the paper than human-written reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-30T07:16:53Z)

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.