The abuse of claims and citations is a legitimate and common problem.

However, I think hallucinated citations pose a bigger problem, because they're fundamentally a lie by commission instead of omission, misinterpretation or misrepresentation of facts.

At the same time, it may be an accidental lie, insofar authors mistakenly used LLMs as search engines, just to support a claim that's commonly known, or that they remember well but can't find the origin of.

So, unless we reduce the pressure on publication speed, and increase the pressure for quality, we'll need to introduce more robust quality checks into peer review.