Send the arXiv AI-generated slop, get a yearlong vacation from submissions

向 arXiv 提交 AI 生成的垃圾内容，将被禁投一年

AI-generated slop has shown up everywhere, including in the peer-reviewed literature. Fake citations, unedited prompt responses, and nonsensical diagrams have all slipped past editors and peer reviewers, and it’s not always clear if there are any consequences for the people responsible. AI 生成的垃圾内容已无处不在，甚至出现在了同行评审的文献中。虚假的引用、未经编辑的提示词回复以及荒谬的图表，都已绕过编辑和同行评审的审查。目前尚不清楚相关责任人是否会受到惩罚。

Now, it appears that a number of scientific fields will be enforcing rules against AI-generated problems even before peer review or journals get involved. One of the people involved in the physics and astronomy preprint server arXiv used a social media thread to announce that any inappropriate AI-produced content submitted to the server will result in a one-year ban and a permanent requirement that future publications undergo peer review before the arXiv will host them. 现在看来，许多科学领域将在同行评审或期刊介入之前，就开始执行针对 AI 生成问题的规则。物理学和天文学预印本服务器 arXiv 的相关负责人通过社交媒体发文宣布，任何提交至该服务器的不当 AI 生成内容，都将导致作者被禁投一年，且未来所有投稿在被 arXiv 收录前，必须先通过同行评审。

Thomas Dietterich, in addition to being an emeritus professor at Oregon State University, is heavily involved with arXiv, serving on its editorial advisory council and on its moderation team. So he’s in a good position to understand the organization’s policies, although we have also reached out to arXiv leadership for confirmation, but have not yet received a response. Thomas Dietterich 不仅是俄勒冈州立大学的荣誉教授，还深度参与了 arXiv 的工作，担任其编辑咨询委员会成员及审核团队成员。因此，他非常了解该组织的政策。尽管我们已联系 arXiv 领导层进行确认，但尚未收到回复。

In a thread on X (also screenshotted on Bluesky, for those without X accounts), Dietterich described the new policy as arising directly from the arXiv’s moderation standards. “Submissions to arXiv must comply with appropriate standards of scholarly communication in form, including appropriate and carefully prepared sections, figures, tables, references, etc.,” those standards read. “General scrupulousness and care of preparation are required.” 在 X 平台的一条推文中（对于没有 X 账号的用户，Bluesky 上也有截图），Dietterich 解释称，这项新政策直接源于 arXiv 的审核标准。这些标准写道：“提交至 arXiv 的内容必须符合学术交流的形式标准，包括适当且精心准备的章节、图表、参考文献等。”并强调：“必须保持严谨和细致的准备工作。”

Dietterich also notes that all authors of a manuscript are responsible for its content. So, if they carelessly submit material generated by an AI that violates these guidelines—Dietterich cites “inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content”—then they’re responsible, not the AI. Dietterich 还指出，论文的所有作者均需对其内容负责。因此，如果作者粗心大意地提交了违反上述准则的 AI 生成材料——Dietterich 列举了“不当语言、剽窃内容、偏见内容、错误、失误、不正确的引用或误导性内容”——那么责任在于作者，而非 AI。

Should violations be discovered, all of the manuscript’s listed authors will now receive a one-year submission ban, and any future manuscripts will only be accepted after they’ve been through peer review by a journal. For fields that rely heavily on the arXiv, those are severe sanctions. 一旦发现违规，论文的所有署名作者都将被禁投一年，且未来提交的任何论文必须先通过期刊的同行评审后才会被接受。对于那些高度依赖 arXiv 的领域来说，这些制裁相当严厉。

Posting preprints in areas like astrophysics is widely considered part of the normal publication process, and scientists will often get feedback on preprints that helps them improve what they submit for peer review. The unfortunate problem is that, like most other things, the system can be gamed—people could submit flawed content that lists people as authors who have never been involved. Fortunately, its moderation system includes an appeal process. One obvious question that arises when these problems are found in publications is why nobody caught them sooner. Now, we can at least know that someone is trying to. 在天体物理学等领域，发布预印本被广泛视为正常出版流程的一部分，科学家们经常能通过预印本获得反馈，从而改进提交同行评审的论文。不幸的是，像大多数系统一样，这个系统也可能被钻空子——有人可能会提交包含虚假作者名单（即列出从未参与过研究的人）的劣质内容。幸运的是，其审核系统包含申诉流程。当出版物中出现这些问题时，一个显而易见的问题是：为什么没有人早点发现？现在，我们至少知道有人正在努力解决这个问题。