Researchers who use hallucinated references to face arXiv ban

"arXiv is banning researchers from posting their manuscripts on the platform for one year if a submission is found to contain references that have been hallucinated by artificial-intelligence tools. The ban also applies to authors who submit manuscripts containing other "incontrovertible" signs of generative AI usage that demonstrate the AI results haven't been carefully checked."

"after a researcher's one-year penalty is over, they will not be able to post any manuscripts to arXiv unless the work has already been accepted at a "reputable peer-reviewed venue". according to Thomas Dietterich, a computer scientist at Oregon State University in Corvallis and chair of arXiv's computer science section."

"arXiv's new policy, which has triggered a torrent of both positive and negative comments from researchers on social media, is one of the latest and most far-reaching examples of how preprint servers are grappling with the rising tide of AI 'slop' - low-quality or meaningless content made using generative AI. Some, such as arXiv, are imposing bans on authors who do not follow their guidelines."

"Scientists increasingly use large language models (LLMs) for a variety of legitimate tasks, such as literature reviews, but arXiv's announcement drew approval from many researchers. "Great move and I fully support it! The only question I have is: why only AI hallucinations, folks? Let's fight the slop in general", Valeri Kremnev, co-founder of the AI startup sci2sci in Berlin, posted on social media."

arXiv will impose a one-year ban on researchers who submit manuscripts containing references hallucinated by artificial-intelligence tools. The ban also applies when manuscripts show other incontrovertible signs of generative AI usage indicating that AI-generated results were not carefully checked. After the one-year penalty ends, authors cannot post new manuscripts unless the work has already been accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue. The policy is presented as a response to low-quality or meaningless generative-AI content, often called “AI slop.” Some researchers support the move, while others argue it targets symptoms rather than underlying causes of poor-quality submissions.

Read at Nature