Scientific web claims are seen as scientific claims as observed on the Web, across social media, online news, and other platforms. The growing prevalence of scientific discussions on the Web has intensified the need to process and assess this specific type of claims. Unlike claims from scientific publications, scientific web claims are expressed in lay terms, are often decontextualized, and typically lack proper citations, which poses unique challenges for their identification, verification, and communication. Nevertheless, the correct processing of scientific web claims is crucial to keeping online science discussions accurate and informed, for instance through fact-checking. This survey provides the first systematic overview dedicated specifically to scientific web claims. We review and compare existing definitions, task formulations, datasets, and methodological approaches across three major perspectives: (1) Scientific fact-checking on the Web, (2) Scientific citations on the Web, and (3) Science communication on the Web. Our interdisciplinary analysis integrates insights from natural language processing, information retrieval, artificial intelligence, social sciences, and science communication. We identify major methodological challenges, including the lack of unified definitions, domain-agnostic corpora, and foundational models tailored to science-related online discourse. We also discuss challenges related to the existing interplay between emotions and distortions of science online. By mapping current research efforts and highlighting open problems, this survey lays the groundwork for developing robust datasets, methods, and evaluation frameworks to advance the automated processing of scientific web claims, a necessary capability for strengthening the reliability of science-related online discourse at scale.
NLnet; Nanoarguments
Scientific knowledge is currently scattered across papers, repositories, and disconnected platforms, with no structured way to trace how claims connect to evidence or how arguments develop. Nanoarguments builds a framework and tools for creating, browsing, and contributing to a global, federated graph of scientific discourse and evidence. Researchers and their communities can collaboratively structure claims, evidence chains, and discussion as nanopublications, which are small, cryptographically signed Linked Data snippets with precise provenance and authorship, published to a decentralized peer-to-peer network. The project builds upon the Nanodash interface to help users browse, edit, and aggregate discourse and evidence graphs, and integrates with dokieli to enable in-context authoring of nanopublications as inline annotations while reading or writing a document. A bidirectional ActivityPub connector bridges the nanopublication network and the fediverse, allowing discourse threads to start as social exchanges and crystallize into persistent, machine-readable evidence records. The project will be piloted with early adopter research groups in discourse and evidence modeling. All components will be released as open-source modules that other systems can build upon.
A New Paradigm for Scientific Publishing, Peer Review, and Impact Assessment
Scientific publishing and peer review have evolved little in three centuries, while the demands placed on them have grown profoundly. The growing role of artificial intelligence has underscored deep, systemic shortcomings of an aging system that has largely evaded innovation, a system whose origins are appallingly closer to the invention of the printing press than to the internet. We can do better – much better. This article is intended as the beginning of a communal experiment: a living document that critically reviews the modern academic publishing and peer-review system and presents a concrete framework to address what bibliometrics experts¹ have characterized as "the pervasive misapplication of indicators to the evaluation of scientific performance". Building on the Leiden Manifesto, DORA, and a body of scholarship spanning many disciplines and decades, we present a community-governed, non-profit platform organized around three trust-weighted impact factors, for articles, authors, and reviewers, with full algorithmic transparency, an open development log, and structural decoupling of credibility scoring from content moderation and from monetization. We invite the community to discuss, critique, and help shape it.
Citing Less Critically: LLMs Reshape the Rhetoric and Reach of Scientific Citation
Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentioning). As large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist scientific writing, whether they reproduce citations with the same rhetorical intent as humans remains unclear. We introduce a masked-citation task to compare human and LLM-generated citation behavior. For each citation context, an LLM generates a replacement citation sentence, producing a counterfactual corpus directly comparable to human citation. We analyze what, whom, and how models cite, using an LLM-as-a-judge to classify citation intent and a 20-million-edge coauthorship network to measure social distance between cited authors. Across six popular LLMs and 1,746 top NLP conference papers (63k+ contexts, 132k+ citations), three patterns emerge: (1) Compared with human citation, LLMs cite significantly less critically; (2) LLMs over-cite popular and older papers, a tendency amplified for contrasting citations where human writing more often draws on recent, niche work; (3) Whereas humans often cite within their close social network, especially for supporting citations, LLMs tend to draw on more socially distant authors. Together, these differences are double-edged: LLM citation reaches beyond a scholar's close collaborators while being less critical and amplifying visibility bias, reshaping the rhetoric and reach of scientific citation.
Incorrect Citation Association for Articles in Online-Only Springer Nature Journals
We show that citation metrics of journal articles in many of the online-only Springer Nature journals and associated ones are distorted, going back to articles from 2001. We find that most likely due to an API response error, there are many incorrect references which typically lead to Article Number 1 of a given Volume. Among others, the issue affects journals such as Scientific Reports, Nature Communications, Communications journals, Cell Death & Disease, Light: Science & Applications, as well as many BMC, Discovery and npj journals. Beyond the negative effect of introducing incorrect reference information, this distorts the citation statistics of articles in these journals, with a few articles being massively over-cited compared to their peers, while many lose citations; e.g. both in Scientific Reports and in Nature Communications, 5 of the 10 top cited articles have article numbers of 1. We validate the distorted statistics by assessing data from multiple scientific literature databases: Crossref, OpenCitations, Semantic Scholar, and the journals' websites. The issue primarily arises from the inconsistent transition from page-based referencing of articles to article number-based referencing, as well as the improper handling of the change in the publisher's article metadata API. It seems that the most pressing problem has been present since approximately 2011, which we estimate affects the citation count of millions of authors.
Crossref: The sustainable source of community-owned scholarly metadata
This paper describes the scholarly metadata collected and made available by Crossref, as well as its importance in the scholarly research ecosystem. Containing over 106 million records and expanding at an average rate of 11% a year, Crossref’s metadata has become one of the major sources of scholarly data for publishers, authors, librarians, funders, and researchers. The metadata set consists of 13 content types, including not only traditional types, such as journals and conference papers, but also data sets, reports, preprints, peer reviews, and grants. The metadata is not limited to basic publication metadata, but can also include abstracts and links to full text, funding and license information, citation links, and the information about corrections, updates, retractions, etc. This scale and breadth make Crossref a valuable source for research in scientometrics, including measuring the growth and impact of science and understanding new trends in scholarly communications. The metadata is available through a number of APIs, including REST API and OAI-PMH. In this paper, we describe the kind of metadata that Crossref provides and how it is collected and curated. We also look at Crossref’s role in the research ecosystem and trends in metadata curation over the years, including the evolution of its citation data provision. We summarize the research used in Crossref’s metadata and describe plans that will improve metadata quality and retrieval in the future.
Large Language Models Require Curated Context for Reliable Political Fact-Checking—Even with Reasoning and Web Search
Large language models (LLMs) have raised hopes for automated end-to-end fact-checking, but prior studies report mixed results. As mainstream chatbots increasingly ship with reasoning capabilities and web search tools—and millions of users already rely on them for verification—rigorous evaluation is urgent. We evaluate 15 recent LLMs from OpenAI, Google, Meta, and DeepSeek on more than 6,000 claims fact-checked by PolitiFact, comparing standard models with reasoning- and web-search variants. Standard models perform poorly, reasoning offers minimal benefits, and web search provides only moderate gains, despite fact-checks being available on the web. In contrast, a curated RAG system using PolitiFact summaries improved macro F1 by 233% on average across model variants. These findings suggest that giving models access to curated high-quality context is a promising path for automated fact-checking.
Towards Automating Scientific Review with Google's Paper Assistant Tool
Artificial intelligence is driving a revolution in scientific discovery, accelerating everything from hypothesis generation to mathematical theorem proving. However, this rapid acceleration is creating a systemic challenge: traditional human peer review cannot scale to match the influx of AI-assisted science. Ultimately, to resolve this tension, we must also deploy AI to accelerate the verification and review process itself. To frame the discussion around this transition, we propose a taxonomy consisting of four progressive levels of AI-human collaboration in scientific evaluation, and discuss various trade-offs involved with each. As a step toward this future, we introduce the Paper Assistant Tool (PAT), an agentic AI framework built for deep scientific review and verification. PAT ingests full scientific manuscripts and produces a comprehensive evaluation, checking theoretical results, validating experiments, suggesting improvements, and identifying potential flaws. By utilizing inference scaling techniques, PAT is able to identify deeper issues than a single model call alone, achieving a 34% improvement over zero-shot recall on mathematical errors in the SPOT benchmark. Pilot deployments of PAT as a pre-submission tool for authors at two major Computer Science conferences -- STOC and ICML -- demonstrate its ability to identify critical errors and suggest substantive improvements to research papers. By catching errors early, PAT eases the cognitive burden placed on referees, while preserving their control over the outcomes of the review process.
A call for broadening the altmetrics tent to democratize science outreach
Common altmetrics indices are limited and biased in the social media that they cover. In this Perspective, we highlight how and why altmetrics should broaden its scope to provide more reliable metrics for scientific content and communication.
TheoremGraph: Bridging Formal and Informal Mathematics
Mathematical knowledge is organized around statements and their dependencies, but this structure is exposed unevenly: informal papers cite mostly at the document level, while formal libraries record fine-grained dependencies over a much smaller body of mathematics. We introduce TheoremGraph, a unified statement-level dependency graph spanning both informal and formal mathematics. On the informal side, we parse 11.7M theorem-like environments from mathematics arXiv and recover 18.3M candidate directed dependencies, each labeled by the extractor that proposed it so downstream users can trade coverage for precision. On the formal side, we release LeanGraph, a Lean 4 elaborator-level extractor producing 388,105 declaration nodes and 11.3M typed edges across 25 Lean projects. We bridge the two graphs by embedding generated natural-language slogans into a shared semantic space, linking related statements across papers and across the informal/formal divide; an LLM judge affirms 47,952 such matches above a 0.8 cosine floor, with the judge-acceptance rate rising from 48% across the floor to 87% in the >=0.9 tier. On formal concept retrieval, our name-and-signature representation with graph expansion comes within 0.5pp of LeanSearch v2's reranked Recall@10 (0.775 vs. 0.780) without an LM reranker. We release the dataset, extractors, HTTP API, and MCP interface as infrastructure for mathematical search, attribution, and retrieval-augmented reasoning, available at theoremsearch.com and huggingface.co/datasets/uw-math-ai/theorem-matching.
RealFactBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Real-World Fact-Checking
Large Language Models (LLMs) hold significant potential for advancing fact-checking by leveraging their capabilities in reasoning, evidence retrieval, and explanation generation. However, existing benchmarks fail to comprehensively evaluate LLMs and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) in realistic misinformation scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce RealFactBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to assess the fact-checking capabilities of LLMs and MLLMs across diverse real-world tasks, including Knowledge Validation, Rumor Detection, and Event Verification. RealFactBench consists of 6K high-quality claims drawn from authoritative sources, encompassing multimodal content and diverse domains. Our evaluation framework further introduces the Unknown Rate (UnR) metric, enabling a more nuanced assessment of models' ability to handle uncertainty and balance between over-conservatism and over-confidence. Extensive experiments on 7 representative LLMs and 4 MLLMs reveal their limitations in real-world fact-checking and offer valuable insights for further research. RealFactBench is publicly available at https://github.com/kalendsyang/RealFactBench.git.
RealFactBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Real-World Fact-Checking
Large Language Models (LLMs) hold significant potential for advancing fact-checking by leveraging their capabilities in reasoning, evidence retrieval, and explanation generation. However, existing benchmarks fail to comprehensively evaluate LLMs and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) in realistic misinformation scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce RealFactBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to assess the fact-checking capabilities of LLMs and MLLMs across diverse real-world tasks, including Knowledge Validation, Rumor Detection, and Event Verification. RealFactBench consists of 6K high-quality claims drawn from authoritative sources, encompassing multimodal content and diverse domains. Our evaluation framework further introduces the Unknown Rate (UnR) metric, enabling a more nuanced assessment of models' ability to handle uncertainty and balance between over-conservatism and over-confidence. Extensive experiments on 7 representative LLMs and 4 MLLMs reveal their limitations in real-world fact-checking and offer valuable insights for further research. RealFactBench is publicly available at https://github.com/kalendsyang/RealFactBench.git.
Stackable Citation Knowledge — Live Demo: Annotate While Reading (CiTeX 2026)
This screencast is the pre-recorded demo segment from the talk "Stackable Citation Knowledge: Building on Nanopublications for Climate and Biodiversity Research", delivered remotely at the CiTeX 2026 Workshop on Citation Extraction and Parsing (DIPF Leibniz Institute, Frankfurt, 28-29 May 2026) by Anne Fouilloux (LifeWatch ERIC) and Jean Iaquinta (Vitenhub AS). The demo walks through the third production path for citation- typed nanopublications: an expert reader annotates a citation found in someone else's paper, rather than the citing author declaring intent (Author path) or an LLM-extraction pipeline inferring it retroactively (Extract path). The annotation is published as a signed CiTO Citation nanopub on the open Science Live network — ORCID-attributed, immutable via Trusty URI, and contestable by counter-nanopubs. Worked example: while reading Wernberg et al. 2016 (Science, 353:169-172, "Climate-driven regime shift of a temperate marine ecosystem"), the reader infers that Wernberg cites reference 11 - Poloczanska et al. 2013 (Nature Climate Change, 3:919-925, "Global imprint of climate change on marine life") - as the global authority for climate-driven marine species redistribution. The annotation is published to Science Live with relation cito:citesAsAuthority and a one-sentence rationale tying it to the authors' planned Mediterranean Iberian extension. This is the alternative to LLM-based citation intent extraction: same downstream signed nanopub, human expert reader instead of a language model in the loop. Complements OpenCitations, WikiCite, and CiTO-extraction tools (GROBID, CEC, GRAPHIA, OFFZIB) by providing a citable target for any typed-citation output. Tools used: - Science Live Zotero plugin (Zotero 7+, plugin v1.0.6) - Science Live platform (platform.sciencelive4all.org) - Citation with CiTO template (built on CiTO and FaBiO ontologies) Related materials: - Talk repository (Slidev source, demo script, references): https://github.com/ScienceLiveHub/citex2026-stackable-citations - Live deck: https://sciencelive4all.org/citex2026-stackable-citations/ - CiTeX 2026 workshop: https://sites.google.com/view/workshop-on-citation-extractio/
Steps Towards an Infrastructure for Scholarly Synthesis
Sharing, reusing, and synthesizing knowledge is central to the research process, both individually, and with others. These core functions are not supported by our formal scholarly publishing infrastructure: instead of the smooth functioning of functional infrastructure, researchers resort to laborious ”hacks” and workarounds to ”mine” publications for what they need, and struggle to efficiently share the resulting information with others. Information scientists have proposed an alternative infrastructure based on the more appropriately granular model of a discourse graph of claims, and evidence, along with key rhetorical relationships between them. However, despite significant technical progress on standards and platforms, the predominant infrastructure remains steadfastly document-based. Drawing from infrastructure studies, we locate the current infrastructural bottlenecks in the lack of local systems that integrate discourse-centric models to augment synthesis work, from which an infrastructure for synthesis can be grown. Through 3 years of research through design and field deployment in a distributed community of hypertext notebook users, we elaborate a design vision of what can and should be built in order to grow a discourse-centric synthesis infrastructure: a thriving “installed base” of researchers authoring local, shareable discourse graphs to improve synthesis work, enhance primary research and research training, and augment collaborative research. We discuss how this design vision — and our empirical work — contributes steps towards a new infrastructure for synthesis, and increases HCI’s capacity to advance collective intelligence and solve infrastructure-level problems.
Steps Towards an Infrastructure for Scholarly Synthesis
Sharing, reusing, and synthesizing knowledge is central to the research process, both individually, and with others. These core functions are not supported by our formal scholarly publishing infrastructure: instead of the smooth functioning of functional infrastructure, researchers resort to laborious "hacks" and workarounds to "mine" publications for what they need, and struggle to efficiently share the resulting information with others. Information scientists have proposed an alternative infrastructure based on the more appropriately granular model of a discourse graph of claims, and evidence, along with key rhetorical relationships between them. However, despite significant technical progress on standards and platforms, the predominant infrastructure remains steadfastly document-based. Drawing from infrastructure studies, we locate the current infrastructural bottlenecks in the lack of local systems that integrate discourse-centric models to augment synthesis work, from which an infrastructure for synthesis can be grown. Through 3 years of research through design and field deployment in a distributed community of hypertext notebook users, we elaborate a design vision of what can and should be built in order to grow a discourse-centric synthesis infrastructure: a thriving "installed base" of researchers authoring local, shareable discourse graphs to improve synthesis work, enhance primary research and research training, and augment collaborative research. We discuss how this design vision -- and our empirical work -- contributes steps towards a new infrastructure for synthesis, and increases HCI's capacity to advance collective intelligence and solve infrastructure-level problems.