There's a semi-famous line of research by Simkin which uses citation copying errors as 'radioactive tracers' to estimate the rate of copying & nonreading, under

There's a semi-famous line of research by Simkin which uses citation copying errors as 'radioactive tracers' to estimate the rate of copying & nonreading, under the logic that (in a pre-digital age), you could not possibly have repeated the '113' error if you got an ILL copy or physically consulted volume '13' (if only because you would be pissed at wasting your time either checking volume 113 first or verifying there's no such thing as volume 113): https://www.gwern.net/Leprechauns#citogenesis-how-often-do-researchers-not-read-the-papers-they-cite https://www.gwern.net/Leprechauns#citogenesis-how-often-do-r... Your 10% isn't far off from the 10-30% estimates people get, so not bad.