@tdietterich: We are seeing a new trend in submissions to @arxiv (and presumably to conferences and journals): Authors submitting pap…
Summary
The author observes a new trend in arXiv submissions where authors may not understand the content of their papers, raising concerns about research integrity.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 09/15/26, 09:44 AM
We are seeing a new trend in submissions to @arxiv (and presumably to conferences and journals): Authors submitting papers whose contents they likely do not understand. 1/
ArXiv policy is that a human author must take responsibility for a submission. But obviously an author cannot take responsibility (or claim credit) for a result that they do not understand. 2/
How should the scientific enterprise handle this? We could try to decide whether the author understands the work. E.g., if the author lacks a publication record or credentials in the research area, we could reject the submission. 3/
Another approach might be to conduct an oral examination of the author to test their understanding of the paper. Could this scale, perhaps by requiring authors to provide a letter from a known authority certifying that the authority has conducted such an exam? 4/
An alternative is to create a new kind of venue where AI-written and verified results could be submitted and made available to the research community for examination and analysis. Like aiXiv, there would be no human author, only a “corresponding human”. 5/
What do people think?
The original goal of arXiv was two-fold: (a) help researchers distribute their work to the research community without the delays of hard-copy journals, (b) permanently archive that work. 1/
Researchers want credit for their ideas and discoveries. This is the currency of the academic world.
ArXiv does not review papers and does not charge authors for submitting. It relies on a large team of volunteers and a small paid staff.
Research Square is very similar to arXiv, but owned by a for-profit publisher and only posts work that is under review in their journals.
None of your three goals is central to arXiv. To the extent that the scientific community seeks TRUE KNOWLEDGE of the world, arXiv wants to help them. Authors do use arXiv time stamps to claim priority in discoveries, so it does help with advancement and credentials.
Finally, when poor quality research is likely to mislead the public (e.g., during COVID), we did not release that work. We also seek to filter out non-research submissions (e.g., job application materials, slide presentations, porn, etc.).
Yes. What do you think the purpose of arXiv should be?
Similar Articles
@tdietterich: Attention @arxiv authors: Our Code of Conduct states that by signing your name as an author of a paper, each author tak…
Tom Dietterich reminds arXiv authors that signing as an author means taking full responsibility for all contents, regardless of how they were generated, highlighting implications for AI-generated content.
Over 30% of new ArXiv submissions now read as AI-written
A study measures the prevalence of AI-written text on arXiv, finding that over 30% of new submissions read as machine-written, with computer science leading at 65% and mathematics lowest at 0.7%.
Backlash against Arxiv's proposed 1 year ban is genuinely perplexing. [D]
The article discusses the surprising backlash against Arxiv's proposed one-year ban for authors who submit papers with hallucinated references from LLMs, highlighting revealing responses from academics.
Research repository ArXiv will ban authors for a year if they let AI do all the work
ArXiv is implementing a new policy that bans authors for one year if submitted papers show clear evidence of unchecked AI generation, such as hallucinated references or LLM comments, reinforcing that authors are fully responsible for content regardless of how it was produced.
ArXiv will ban researchers who upload papers full of AI slop
ArXiv, a popular preprint platform, will ban authors for one year if they submit papers containing clear signs of unchecked LLM-generated content, such as hallucinated references or LLM meta-comments, to reduce AI slop.