Seems like using tooling like this to identify papers with fake citations and auto-rejecting them before they ever get in front of a reviewer would kill two birds with one stone.

It's not always possible to distinguish between fake citations and citations that are simply hard to find (e.g. wonderful old books that aren't on the Internet).

Another problem is that conferences move slowly and it's hard to adjust the publication workflow in such an invasive way. CVPR only recently moved from Microsoft's CMT to OpenReview to accept author submissions, for example.

There's a lot of opportunity for innovation in this space, but it's hard when everyone involved would need to agree to switch to a different workflow.

(Not shooting you down. It's just complicated because the people who would benefit are far away from the people who would need to do the work to support it...)