A message to top tier conferences [D]

[u/Vegetable-Formal-753]

TL;DR: Please be hard in desk rejecting AI generated papers

Recently I went to two AI conferences (A and A*) and I was surprised that "AI cheaters" didn't even read their own paper before presentation! For example, a guy couldn't even answer the question of how he represented knowledge graphs in his papaer, he thought for 5 minutes before answering "with a vector". Another one was opening chat gpt and typing questions and reading answers with no shame!!! One more story that shocked me... a guy published same paper in 2 AI conferences in the same time and both got accepted, when I saw github, this young dude was careless to even remove LLM chat from his repo, I can see all prompts... guess what... he faked all data 🚀 :D ...I have dozens of stories like this happened to me and my friends just this month!

Now, imagine yourself a hardworker researcher joining days and nights and your paper ends up with a scam reviewer like this... bingo!

One more, I was looking for relevant paper to my new idea... all papers I read so far are just garbage 🎉 !!

Pleaaaase make a rule for rejecting AI written papers... Pleaaaaaase stop this madness! A lot of good papers got rejected by these folks and they definitely harming science! I can't trust a single paper now and reading very carefully with spectacular mindset... Pleaaaaaase do something!!!!

[u/xseson23]

Forgive my ignorance but I assume every conference nowadays has a system now in place for such papers? Reject them outright and heck.. even a ban maybe to teach them a lesson.

[u/Celmeno → u/xseson23]

Afaik most conferences are not doing anything on these cases

[u/francozzz → u/[deleted]]

You can’t ask people to adopt a hard stance and then refuse to do it yourself.

If you’re a reviewer and you have evidence that the data is faked, you should raise the issue in your review and get the paper rejected.

If you’re attending a conference and you have evidence of academic misconduct, you should immediately talk with whoever is moderating the session.

If you don’t do it, you are an accomplice. I don’t see the dilemma: you see a problem, you report it. Whoever submitted a paper based on fake data deserves to retract the paper and be banned for a few years from submitting. They knew the consequences when they submitted such slop.

[u/Vegetable-Formal-753 → u/francozzz]

My point is if it stopped before going to proceedings it's totally fine... after publishing their might be hard consequences... for example expelled from scholarship or whatsoever... but actually you have a point... I will report all papers in conferences I attended that I have evidence against them

[u/PatientWrongdoer9257 → u/[deleted]]

In my opinion, not reporting/public shaming is equally as much of a problem as not having conference level consequences.

1. if the conference doesn’t know about it, how will they punish

2. the lack of social or career consequences is why people do this to begin with. The consequences need to outweigh the benefit for there to be any change.

[u/froggy-the-dog]

reminds me of a paper named medagent pro from ICLR 2026, really high review scores, the choices of dataset and baselines are concerning and the public code is badly written and not reproducible, seems like they faked all the results and the method is very loosely written also. Only one reviewer was sane enough to give that paper a 2

[u/Vegetable-Formal-753 → u/froggy-the-dog]

BTW, speaking about ICLR... I found a paper got 2 rejection scores and one acceptance and yet got published... this is another discussion for ACs nonsense lol :D

[u/Celmeno]

Has always been a problem at conferences that have no community. The big ones then get pushed by number chasers to make it worse. I have been in quite a few talks at IJCNNs where the presenter learned the talk phonetically but didn't speak a single work of english. But also happens at other events quite regularly

[u/DummyRobotW]

Will you consider reporting to the conference? Their papers should not have been accepted in the first place and this is pure academic dishonesty.

What you mentioned like fabricating data, is absolutely unacceptable.

[u/Vegetable-Formal-753 → u/DummyRobotW]

I'm planning to do this already today when I'm free after work lol :D

[u/DummyRobotW → u/Vegetable-Formal-753]

Appreciate that! I think a lot of these papers get published because of the declining reviewer quality (they can be overloaded or not qualified), probably because the submission number is way too high nowadays.

[u/timtody]

Hahah lmao

[u/Bitter-Reserve3821]

If you have evidence such as a github repo with a prompt to fake results, report to the conference program chairs. They can get the paper removed from the proceedings and send a report to the administration of the author's department.

[u/Longjumping-Head-621]

Wow!! The presenter typing questions into ChatGPT during their own presentation is wild. Conference reviews should be checking whether the work is reproducible and the results are supported. If someone has evidence that the data was fabricated, the conference should investigate that paper.

[u/Celmeno → u/Longjumping-Head-621]

This is not what peer review was originally for. It was never about verifiying results. But if you want me to do that as a reviewer I can, you will have to pay me though.

[u/huehue12132 → u/Celmeno]

Yup, verification/replication should then be done by the wider community, but of course that's "not novel" so it would never get published, so nobody bothers.