Consideration @arxiv authors: Our Code of Behavior states that by means of signing your identify as an creator of a paper, every creator takes complete duty for all its contents, regardless of how the contents have been generated.
If generative AI gear generate beside the point language, plagiarized content material, biased content material, mistakes, errors, unsuitable references, or deceptive content material, and that output is incorporated in clinical works, it’s the duty of the creator(s).
We’ve lately clarified our consequences for this. If a submission incorporates incontrovertible proof that the authors didn’t take a look at the result of LLM technology, this implies we will be able to’t accept as true with the rest within the paper.
The penalty is a 1-year ban from arXiv adopted by means of the requirement that next arXiv submissions should first be approved at a credible peer-reviewed venue.
Examples of incontrovertible proof: hallucinated references, meta-comments from the LLM (“here’s a 200 phrase abstract; do you want me to make any adjustments?”; “the knowledge on this desk is illustrative, fill it in with the true numbers out of your experiments”)
