{"id":43162,"date":"2025-08-04T11:52:11","date_gmt":"2025-08-04T11:52:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/43162\/"},"modified":"2025-08-04T11:52:11","modified_gmt":"2025-08-04T11:52:11","slug":"springer-nature-retracts-book-with-fake-citations-help-us-find-more-cases-like-this-retraction-watch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/43162\/","title":{"rendered":"Springer Nature retracts book with fake citations. Help us find more cases like this. \u2013 Retraction Watch"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Springer Nature has officially retracted<\/a> a book on machine learning following coverage by <\/a>Retraction Watch<\/a>. A reader sent us a tip about this book; we\u2019d love your help identifying more.<\/p>\n

As we reported, the book, Mastering Machine Learning: From Basics to Advanced, contained many citations to nonexistent works. These fake references are a hallmark of text generated by large language models like ChatGPT.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The retraction notice<\/a> mentions the illusory citations, stating, \u201cFollowing publication concerns were raised regarding the validity of certain references. Upon further investigation, the Publisher was unable to verify the source of 25 out of 46 references in this book.\u201d After listing the 25 citations, 12 of which we found in our initial reporting, it continues, \u201cthe Series Editor and the publisher therefore no longer have confidence in the reliability of this book. The author has not stated explicitly whether he agrees with this retraction.\u201d<\/p>\n

The website for the book remains intact, with each chapter labeled \u201cRetracted Chapter,\u201d the title appended with \u201cRetracted Book\u201d the cover image watermarked.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Following our story, we received multiple tips from readers about other books with fake citations. Do you know of another recently published book with citations that don\u2019t check out? Tell us about it here<\/a>. On the form, we ask you to point to specific citations that are not real. We\u2019ll take it from there.<\/p>\n

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a\u00a0tax-deductible contribution to support our work<\/a>, follow us\u00a0on X<\/a> or Bluesky<\/a>, like us\u00a0on Facebook<\/a>, follow us on LinkedIn<\/a>, add us to your\u00a0RSS reader<\/a>, or subscribe to our\u00a0daily digest<\/a>. If you find a retraction that\u2019s\u00a0not in our database<\/a>, you can\u00a0let us know here<\/a>. For comments or feedback, email us at\u00a0[email\u00a0protected]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tProcessing\u2026\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tSuccess! You’re on the list.\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tWhoops! There was an error and we couldn’t process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\tRelated\n<\/p>\n

\t