100
Arxiv bans slop
(hexbear.net)
transcript
Screenshot from Thomas Dietterich on X:
"Attention @arxiv authors: Our Code of Conduct states that by signing your name as an author of a paper, each author takes full responsibility for all its contents, irrespective of how the contents were generated."
With a reply from James Miller: "So this means you expect every author to check every citation and make sure that every citation is real and accurate? What if it's beyond the ability of one of the authors to verify one of the citations because that citation is in a language he doesn't know or concerns technical material he doesn't understand but another author on the paper does?"
Usually I'd also feel bad dunking on a random. However, when that random does a disservice to the scientific community, I think it becomes fair game.
Specially in the light of the ongoing replication crisis. There are multiple reasons scientists are having a hard time reproducing published results, but a lot of them boils down to "someone skipped proper procedures" (like he encourages people to). Peer review is supposed to catch this, but when a person who can enforce those proper procedures says "we'll enforce them", suddenly the same random makes up reasons against the policy.