Forgetting authors, misspelling them or the journals, putting a wrong digit etc... could be citation typos. I don't see how you add 5 non-existing authors and put a different—but conceptually plausible—journal in the bibtex.
Besides, I would think most people are using bibliographic managers like Zotero&co..., which will pull metadata through DOIs or such.
The errors look a lot more like what happens when you ask an LLM for some sources on xyz.
If a person usually uses Zotero to manage literature and finds incomplete metadata when exporting BibTeX, and with the submission deadline approaching, they use GPT to complete the metadata, leading to errors, this is indeed lazy and negligent behavior. But is it what many call deceitful and unforgivable?
I believe that once this person realizes the unreliability of using GPT to complete metadata, they will no longer use such methods in the future.
I also look forward to the community's dedicated individuals developing more comprehensive automated export tools, as copying and pasting one by one is inherently tedious and should be automated.
Currently, these individuals used incorrect automated tools and placed excessive trust in them, resulting in errors. This is a profound lesson that must never be repeated.
I think it's not uncommon to ask an LLM for the bibtex for a paper you know about, & it might mess it up, but that doesn't feel like a fireable offense
Besides, I would think most people are using bibliographic managers like Zotero&co..., which will pull metadata through DOIs or such.
The errors look a lot more like what happens when you ask an LLM for some sources on xyz.