ArXiv bans researchers for AI-generated paper slop
▼ Summary
– Each author signing an arXiv paper takes full responsibility for all content, regardless of how it was generated, including output from generative AI tools.
– Including AI-produced inappropriate, plagiarized, biased, or misleading content in scientific works is the author’s responsibility.
– If incontrovertible evidence shows authors did not check LLM-generated results, the paper’s trustworthiness is considered compromised.
– The penalty for such violations is a 1-year ban from arXiv, followed by a requirement that future submissions be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue first.
– Examples of incontrovertible evidence include hallucinated references and LLM meta-comments like “here is a 200 word summary; would you like me to make any changes?”
The preprint repository ArXiv is taking a firm stand against AI-generated paper slop, issuing a clear warning to authors who fail to take responsibility for content produced by large language models. In a recent update to its enforcement policies, ArXiv has announced a one-year ban for researchers found to have submitted papers with “incontrovertible evidence” that the authors did not review or verify the output of generative AI tools.
According to ArXiv’s Code of Conduct, each author listed on a paper bears full responsibility for every element of the work, regardless of how that content was created. This means that if an AI tool introduces inappropriate language, plagiarized material, biased statements, factual errors, or misleading references, the blame falls squarely on the human authors. The repository emphasized that simply using generative AI does not absolve researchers of their duty to ensure accuracy and integrity.
The new penalties are explicit. When a submission contains clear signs that authors neglected to check the results of LLM generation, ArXiv states that it “can’t trust anything in the paper.” In such cases, the consequence is a one-year suspension from submitting to ArXiv, followed by a requirement that any future submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue before being posted on the platform.
Examples of the kind of “incontrovertible evidence” that triggers these penalties include hallucinated references that do not exist, as well as meta-comments left by the AI model. These can range from phrases like “here is a 200 word summary; would you like me to make any changes?” to notes such as “the data in this table is illustrative, fill it in with the real numbers from your experiments.” Such remnants indicate that the authors simply copied and pasted AI output without any meaningful human oversight.
This move underscores a growing concern across academic publishing about the unchecked use of generative AI, which can undermine the credibility of scientific literature. ArXiv’s message is clear: authors cannot outsource their accountability to a machine, and sloppy practices will have real consequences.
(Source: The Verge)
