| name | citation-verification |
| description | Verification guide for citations added during rebuttal writing. Use when Stage 2 responses introduce new references, when the Area Chair asks about a cited paper, or when any citation in the rebuttal might have been AI-generated. Prevents the serious credibility damage of fabricated references in reviewer-facing documents. |
| tags | ["Citation","Verification","Academic","Accuracy"] |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| source | Adapted from Claude Scholar (https://github.com/Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar), skills/citation-verification/SKILL.md. |
Citation Verification for Rebuttals
RebuttalStudio Utility — Stage 2 / Stage 4
Apply this skill whenever a Stage 2 draft or Stage 4 follow-up response introduces a new reference — especially when the reference was suggested by an LLM. A single fabricated citation in a rebuttal can undermine the entire response's credibility.
Verification principles and workflow for citations added during the rebuttal writing process.
Why Citations in Rebuttals Are High-Risk
Rebuttal citations are uniquely dangerous compared to paper citations:
- Short turnaround: Rebuttal period is 2–4 days. Authors write quickly under pressure.
- LLM suggestions are plausible-sounding but often wrong: AI-generated citation suggestions have an estimated 40% error rate — wrong author, wrong year, wrong title, or entirely fabricated.
- Reviewers check: An Area Chair or reviewer who discovers a fabricated citation in a rebuttal will immediately lose confidence in the entire response.
- No revision opportunity: Unlike a paper, a submitted rebuttal cannot be revised after submission.
Core rule: Never add a citation to a rebuttal response unless you have personally verified it exists via search.
When to Verify
Verify any citation that was:
- Suggested by an LLM during Stage 2 drafting
- Recalled from memory without looking it up
- Copied from a reviewer comment (reviewers can also be wrong)
- Added to counter a reviewer's "missing baseline" claim
- Introduced to support a new claim not already cited in the paper
Existing citations from the paper itself generally do not need re-verification — but do confirm the claim you are citing actually appears in that work.
Verification Workflow
Step 1: Search
Use a reliable academic search engine:
Recommended search order:
1. Google Scholar (scholar.google.com)
2. Semantic Scholar (semanticscholar.org)
3. arXiv (arxiv.org) — for preprints
4. ACL Anthology (aclanthology.org) — for NLP/ACL papers
5. OpenReview (openreview.net) — for ICLR/ICML papers
Search query pattern:
"[Paper title keywords]" [first author last name] [approximate year]
Step 2: Confirm Existence
Verify the paper exists by confirming:
Step 3: Verify the Specific Claim
When citing a specific finding, do not trust your memory of the paper's conclusion.
- Locate the specific sentence or figure that supports your claim
- If you cannot access the full text, cite more conservatively ("as suggested by [author]") or drop the citation
- Do not paraphrase a result you have not read
Step 4: Record the Verified Reference
Format for use in rebuttal prose (no BibTeX needed in most rebuttal portals):
[Author et al., Year, "Title", Venue]
e.g.: [Chen et al., 2023, "LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models", ICLR]
When You Cannot Verify
If after searching you cannot confirm the paper exists:
Option A — Drop the citation
If the claim can stand without it, remove the reference.
Option B — Hedge the claim
"Prior work on [topic] (e.g., [general area]) suggests…" without citing a specific paper.
Option C — Mark for human verification
If working with an LLM and you want to flag it:
[CITATION NEEDED — verify before submission: "[paper title you were trying to cite]"]
Never submit a rebuttal with a citation you have not verified, even if it sounds plausible.
Rebuttal-Specific Citation Patterns
Citing Your Own Prior Work
- Verify the venue, year, and paper number match what appears in your submission's reference list
- Consistency with the submitted paper matters — reviewers notice discrepancies
Citing a Reviewer-Suggested Baseline
- Reviewers sometimes suggest comparing with papers that are not directly comparable
- Verify the suggested paper actually evaluates on your task/dataset before agreeing to compare
- You may respond: "We have examined [Paper], which evaluates on [different setting], making direct comparison difficult."
Citing to Defend Against "Missing Related Work"
- Search first — the paper may genuinely exist and you missed it
- If it exists, consider acknowledging it: "Thank you for pointing out [Paper]; we will add a discussion in Related Work."
- If it does not exist (after searching), respond diplomatically: "We searched but could not locate this work; we would appreciate a link or full title."
Quick Verification Table
| Citation Source | Risk Level | Action |
|---|
| LLM-suggested reference | Very high | Always verify before including |
| Recalled from memory | Medium | Verify title and year |
| Copied from reviewer comment | Medium | Verify existence; reviewer may be wrong |
| Already in paper's reference list | Low | Confirm the claim is in that paper |
| Found via search in last 24h | Low | Cross-check author/venue |
Adapted from Claude Scholar's citation-verification skill for the rebuttal context. Original: https://github.com/Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar/blob/main/skills/citation-verification/SKILL.md
