BibTeX Citation Errors in Scientific Publishing Agents: Evaluation and Mitigation

Large language models with web search are increasingly used in scientific publishing agents, yet they produce BibTeX entries with pervasive field-level errors stemming from omission, partial corruption, substitution, and hallucination. We construct a benchmark of 931 papers across four domains and three citation tiers---popular, low-citation, and recent post-cutoff---with version-aware ground truth. Three search-enabled frontier models (GPT-5, Claude Sonnet-4.6, Gemini-3 Flash) generate approximately 23,000 field-level observations. Overall accuracy is 83.6%, but only 50.9% of entries are fully correct; accuracy drops 27.7 pp from popular to recent papers, revealing heavy reliance on parametric memory even when search is available. Co-occurrence analysis identifies two failure modes: wholesale entry substitution and isolated field error. We present clibib, an open-source tool for deterministic BibTeX retrieval, as a mitigation mechanism. Two-stage integration raises accuracy to 91.5% (+8.0 pp) and fully correct entries to 78.3%, with a 0.8% regression rate. Separating search from revision yields larger gains and lower regression than single-stage tool loops (0.8% vs. 4.8%), demonstrating that integration architecture matters independently of model/tool capability. We release clibib and an accompanying agent skill under the MIT License to improve citation accuracy in increasingly automated scientific workflows.