[eqvinox]

I do believe this policy is appropriate to deal with the reckless disregard of posting hallucinated references.

It's a conscious decision to not take the time to check your AI output, and instead waste a whole bunch of other people's time letting them essentially do that for you in duplicate.

Feels like that should disqualify you from participation for a bit. Intent or no intent.

[InfiniteAscent]

100% agreed.

Doing your job poorly means giving more work to others and, consequently, stealing their time, their most precious asset.

Many here don't agree with this ban because they work in IT, where this immoral and antisocial behavior is normalized.

[dataflow]

> Feels like that should disqualify you from participation for a bit. Intent or no intent.

Exactly! For a bit!

Yet this is not for a bit! This is a lifetime disqualification, and that's been my entire grip the whole time! Is nobody reading 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."

[lelanthran]

That doesn't sound like a lifetime ban to me.

[dataflow]

What? Then how long are they disqualifying them from submitting prior to acceptance, if not lifetime? It certainly doesn't say 1 year or something.

[lelanthran]

> Then how long are they disqualifying them from submitting prior to acceptance, if not lifetime?

Well, "lifetime ban" means "you are not allowed back in". Their ban specifically allows you back in (after a specified period) subject to fulfilling a single constraint.

It's conditional acceptance back in, which is not the same as a lifetime ban which is unconditional.

[eqvinox]

Mhm. Okay, honestly, I maybe don't have enough data to judge how much impact that requirement has.

I also haven't seen anything on how this works with multiple authors, which could go anywhere from draconian to weakening the entire thing.