Citing Less Critically: LLMs Reshape the Rhetoric and Reach of Scientific Citation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.01432v1
• Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2026 15:42:04 GMT
• Title: Citing Less Critically: LLMs Reshape the Rhetoric and Reach of Scientific Citation
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist scientific writing.<n>LLMs cite significantly less critically than humans.<n>LLMs draw on more socially distant authors.
• Score: 7.070925783647859
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentioning). As large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist scientific writing, whether they reproduce citations with the same rhetorical intent as humans remains unclear. We introduce a masked-citation task to compare human and LLM-generated citation behavior. For each citation context, an LLM generates a replacement citation sentence, producing a counterfactual corpus directly comparable to human citation. We analyze what, whom, and how models cite, using an LLM-as-a-judge to classify citation intent and a 20-million-edge coauthorship network to measure social distance between cited authors. Across six popular LLMs and 1,746 top NLP conference papers (63k+ contexts, 132k+ citations), three patterns emerge: (1) Compared with human citation, LLMs cite significantly less critically; (2) LLMs over-cite popular and older papers, a tendency amplified for contrasting citations where human writing more often draws on recent, niche work; (3) Whereas humans often cite within their close social network, especially for supporting citations, LLMs tend to draw on more socially distant authors. Together, these differences are double-edged: LLM citation reaches beyond a scholar's close collaborators while being less critical and amplifying visibility bias, reshaping the rhetoric and reach of scientific citation.

Related papers

• CRISP: Characterizing Relative Impact of Scholarly Publications [70.25915589244961]
  We propose CRISP, which jointly ranks all cited papers within a citing paper using large language models (LLMs)<n>To mitigate LLMs' positional bias, we rank each list three times in a randomized order and aggregate the impact labels through majority voting.<n>CRISP outperforms a prior state-of-the-art impact classifier by +9.5% accuracy and +8.3% F1 on a dataset of human-annotated citations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T16:42:30Z)
• 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)
• Aligning Large Language Model Behavior with Human Citation Preferences [45.80355133880463]
  We study the relationship between human citation preferences and large-scale language models (LLMs) behavior.<n>Our results show that humans most frequently seek citations for medical text, and stronger models display a similar tendency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T02:02:43Z)
• Citation Failure: Definition, Analysis and Efficient Mitigation [56.09968229868067]
  Citations from LLM-based RAG systems are supposed to simplify response verification.<n>This does not hold for citation failure, when a model generates a helpful response, but fails to cite complete evidence.<n>We propose to disentangle this from response failure, where the response itself is flawed, and citing complete evidence is impossible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T07:47:22Z)
• How Deep Do Large Language Models Internalize Scientific Literature and Citation Practices? [1.130790932059036]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) reinforce the Matthew effect in citations by consistently favoring highly cited papers.<n>We analyze 274,951 references generated by GPT-4o for 10,000 papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-03T17:04:56Z)
• The Noisy Path from Source to Citation: Measuring How Scholars Engage with Past Research [20.649638393774048]
  We introduce a computational pipeline to quantify citation fidelity at scale.<n>Using full texts of papers, the pipeline identifies citations in citing papers and the corresponding claims in cited papers.<n>Using a quasi-experiment, we establish the "telephone effect" - when citing papers have low fidelity to the original claim, future papers that cite the citing paper and the original have lower fidelity to the original.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T22:47:03Z)
• SelfCite: Self-Supervised Alignment for Context Attribution in Large Language Models [51.90867482317985]
  SelfCite is a self-supervised approach to generate fine-grained, sentence-level citations for statements in generated responses.<n>The effectiveness of SelfCite is demonstrated by increasing citation F1 up to 5.3 points on the LongBench-Cite benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T18:55:13Z)
• When Large Language Models Meet Citation: A Survey [37.01594297337486]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) could be helpful in capturing fine-grained citation information via the corresponding textual context. Citations also establish connections among scientific papers, providing high-quality inter-document relationships. We review the application of LLMs for in-text citation analysis tasks, including citation classification, citation-based summarization, and citation recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-18T12:48:48Z)
• Towards generating citation sentences for multiple references with intent control [86.53829532976303]
  We build a novel generation model with the Fusion-in-Decoder approach to cope with multiple long inputs. Experiments demonstrate that the proposed approaches provide much more comprehensive features for generating citation sentences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-02T15:32:24Z)
• Citations are not opinions: a corpus linguistics approach to understanding how citations are made [0.0]
  Key issue in citation content analysis is looking for linguistic structures that characterize distinct classes of citations. In this study, we start with a large sample of a pre-classified citation corpus, 2 million citations from each class of the scite Smart Citation dataset. By generating comparison tables for each citation type, we present a number of interesting linguistic features that uniquely characterize citation type.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-16T12:52:27Z)

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.