not just bann them. but to submit in future, their paper needs to be accepted in a reputable peer reviewed journal
this post was submitted on 16 May 2026
340 points (99.7% liked)
Technology
84748 readers
4593 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
ArXiv is a place where researchers put papers before they are accepted and peer reviewed ("preprints"). Requiring this would defeat the purpose of arXiv, which is to allow fellow researchers to see material that is not peer reviewed before it is published. Before arXiv, this happened only through informal discussions and meetings during conferences.
Commentor is not saying they should do this. They are doing this.
“The penalty is a 1-year ban from arXiv followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue,” Dietterich wrote.
arXiv has postprints, too, and it means that once a journal has accepted your work, you can prerelease before they publish.
But yes, they are effectively telling the research community to get their shit together before submitting, or pay the price.
Oh my bad, I interpreted the comment as saying it should be a general requirement.
Yea, I figured! Pretty heavy handed on arXiv's part, so I'm not surprised by the interpretation. Though, I like the heavy handedness.
submit ai slop once = arxiv doesn't trust you for the rest of your life.
fine by me
Great reason not to publish AI slop then
ArXiv uses an endorsement system so that not everyone can post there. However, sometimes dubious "scientists" manage to slip through the cracks, which is why there is moderation for cases such as these.
Unfortunately this will just make them add "don't make this look like slop" to their prompts
Its for hallucinated sources. There are already sloppers developing source check tools so you can be sure all the citations are real. Not useful or relevant just exist.
"Also, be sure not to hallucinate and don't make any mistakes."
It's fool proof!!
"Make no mistakes, don't use en or em dashes."