←back to thread

Over fifty new hallucinations in ICLR 2026 submissions

(gptzero.me)
504 points puttycat | 2 comments | 07 Dec 25 13:16 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
senshan ◴[07 Dec 25 19:50 UTC] No.46184530[source]▶
As many pointed out, the purpose of peer review is not linting, but the assessment of the novelty and subtle omissions.

Which incentives can be set to discourage the negligence?

How about bounties? A bounty fund set up by the publisher and each submission must come with a contribution to the fund. Then there be bounties for gross negligence that could attract bounty hunters.

How about a wall of shame? Once negligence crosses a certain threshold, the name of the researcher and the paper would be put on a wall of shame for everyone to search and see?

replies(1): >>46184568 #
1. skybrian ◴[07 Dec 25 19:55 UTC] No.46184568[source]▶
For the kinds of omissions described here, maybe the journal could do an automated citation check when the paper is submitted and bounce back any paper that has a problem with a day or two lag. This would be incentive for submitters to do their own lint check.
replies(1): >>46184666 #
2. senshan ◴[07 Dec 25 20:08 UTC] No.46184666[source]▶
True if the citation has only a small typo or two. But if it is unrecognizable or even irrelevant, this is clearly bad (fraudulent?) research -- each citation has be read and understood by the researcher and put in there only if absolutely necessary to support the paper.

There must be price to pay for wasting other people's time (lives?).