CitePrism: Human-in-the-Loop AI for Citation Auditing and Editorial Integrity
Fuente:
arXiv
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2026
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866918522641186816 |
|---|---|
| author | Mahesh, Gowrika Gowda, Budanur Madappa Darshan Papegowda, Kavana Gopladevarahalli Basavaraj, Prajwal Vu, Binh Chandna, Swati Jalali, Mehrdad |
| author_facet | Mahesh, Gowrika Gowda, Budanur Madappa Darshan Papegowda, Kavana Gopladevarahalli Basavaraj, Prajwal Vu, Binh Chandna, Swati Jalali, Mehrdad |
| contents | Editors and reviewers are expected to ensure that manuscripts cite relevant, accurate, current, and ethically appropriate literature, yet manuscript-level citation auditing remains largely manual, fragmented, and difficult to scale. Citation context, metadata quality, self-citation patterns, and bibliographic integrity all affect whether a reference appropriately supports a local claim. We present CitePrism, a transparent hybrid decision-support framework for editorial citation auditing that combines LLM-assisted contextual reasoning, embedding-based semantic similarity, metadata verification, integrity-oriented flags, and human-in-the-loop analyst review. CitePrism extracts citation neighborhoods, enriches reference metadata, computes fused relevance scores, surfaces metadata and self-citation review prompts, and supports configurable threshold-based triage. In a preliminary validation on a single case-study manuscript with 104 references from pavement engineering, agreement with human binary relevance labels reached Cohen's kappa = 0.429. At operating threshold tau = 17, CitePrism flagged all human-labeled irrelevant citations, while also producing false positives requiring analyst review. These results suggest that CitePrism may support conservative editorial screening and citation-quality triage, but they do not establish general editorial performance. CitePrism is intended as pilot-stage decision support, not as an autonomous misconduct detector or automated editorial decision system. Broader validation across manuscripts, domains, annotators, baselines, and deployment settings is required before operational use. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2605_16000 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | CitePrism: Human-in-the-Loop AI for Citation Auditing and Editorial Integrity Mahesh, Gowrika Gowda, Budanur Madappa Darshan Papegowda, Kavana Gopladevarahalli Basavaraj, Prajwal Vu, Binh Chandna, Swati Jalali, Mehrdad Social and Information Networks Artificial Intelligence Digital Libraries H.3.7; H.3.3; I.2.7 Editors and reviewers are expected to ensure that manuscripts cite relevant, accurate, current, and ethically appropriate literature, yet manuscript-level citation auditing remains largely manual, fragmented, and difficult to scale. Citation context, metadata quality, self-citation patterns, and bibliographic integrity all affect whether a reference appropriately supports a local claim. We present CitePrism, a transparent hybrid decision-support framework for editorial citation auditing that combines LLM-assisted contextual reasoning, embedding-based semantic similarity, metadata verification, integrity-oriented flags, and human-in-the-loop analyst review. CitePrism extracts citation neighborhoods, enriches reference metadata, computes fused relevance scores, surfaces metadata and self-citation review prompts, and supports configurable threshold-based triage. In a preliminary validation on a single case-study manuscript with 104 references from pavement engineering, agreement with human binary relevance labels reached Cohen's kappa = 0.429. At operating threshold tau = 17, CitePrism flagged all human-labeled irrelevant citations, while also producing false positives requiring analyst review. These results suggest that CitePrism may support conservative editorial screening and citation-quality triage, but they do not establish general editorial performance. CitePrism is intended as pilot-stage decision support, not as an autonomous misconduct detector or automated editorial decision system. Broader validation across manuscripts, domains, annotators, baselines, and deployment settings is required before operational use. |
| title | CitePrism: Human-in-the-Loop AI for Citation Auditing and Editorial Integrity |
| topic | Social and Information Networks Artificial Intelligence Digital Libraries H.3.7; H.3.3; I.2.7 |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.16000 |