Ban for Authors Submitting AI Content 'Welcome but Unenforceable'
The preprint platform arXiv has announced a one-year ban for authors whose submissions contain AI-generated errors, a move welcomed by research integrity advocates. The policy aims to address the increasing number of AI-assisted submissions, which have surged significantly in recent years. However, concerns remain about the enforceability of the ban and the potential burden on arXiv staff to manage appeals and adjudications.
- ▪arXiv will impose a one-year ban on authors if their submissions contain 'incontrovertible evidence' of AI mistakes.
- ▪The policy is seen as a response to the rising number of AI-assisted submissions, which exceeded 30,000 in March.
- ▪Research integrity advocates have welcomed the ban as a measure against low-quality manuscripts and paper mills.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
The preprint platform will ban authors for a year if “incontrovertible evidence” of AI mistakes is found in their work. gorsh13/iStock/Getty Images A major scientific repository’s decision to ban authors whose work contains “hallucinated” references written by generative artificial intelligence has been welcomed by research integrity campaigners despite concerns about how the policy can be properly enforced. In a landmark move, the popular preprint platform arXiv has said it will impose an immediate one-year ban if it finds “incontrovertible evidence” that submissions contain “inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content” written by large language models.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs.
Discussion
0 comments
