Part of the forensic work with this, I won't ever be able to tell the difference between "I as a human messed up" vs "LLM go brr and filled in everything". So I think editor discretion when to correct vs when to retract is fine. (I do think that PLoS One correction should have been retracted as well though.)
VerusCite has its first appearance on my radar. Never heard of it.
> While I do not think that hallucinated citations should always result in a retraction,
Wtf?
If you check out https://veruscite.com/hallucinations there are much more banal examples than that article.
Part of the forensic work with this, I won't ever be able to tell the difference between "I as a human messed up" vs "LLM go brr and filled in everything". So I think editor discretion when to correct vs when to retract is fine. (I do think that PLoS One correction should have been retracted as well though.)