• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
AI

Concerns over AI “slop” in academic papers and peer reviews

One reviewer called three of four papers they reviewed and two of three reviews they received in an ARR cycle “AI slop.”

François FleuretFF
Ravid Shwartz ZivRS
Mikel ArtetxeMA
3 Sources, 20d ago, first seen 20d ago

TLDR

In a September 19, 2026 post, one reviewer described three of four papers they reviewed and two of three reviews they received that ARR cycle as “AI slop.” They warned that without urgent, drastic measures, conference publications would lose their value or even become a negative signal, with broader consequences for academia.

Combined views

37.1K

3 Sources, first seen 20d ago

540 likes51 comments35 saves27 reposts

Combined views

37.1K

3 Sources, first seen 20d ago

540 likes51 comments35 saves27 reposts

Sentiment

Positive32%68%Negative

Summary

Many accounts worried that AI slop is already flooding academic peer review and that full-AI solutions could undermine training for junior researchers, while others supported submission fees or credits to raise barriers.

Based on 28 sentiment-bearing replies from 25 accounts across 2 conversations.

Sentiment

Positive32%68%Negative

Summary

Many accounts worried that AI slop is already flooding academic peer review and that full-AI solutions could undermine training for junior researchers, while others supported submission fees or credits to raise barriers.

Based on 28 sentiment-bearing replies from 25 accounts across 2 conversations.

3 Sources

Mikel Artetxe@artetxem3/4 papers I reviewed and 2/3 reviews I got this ARR cycle were AI slop. Fraudsters are already outnumbering honest researchers. Unless drastic measures are urgently adopted, conference publications will have zero value or even become negative signal, and academia will be toast.20d
François Fleuret@francoisfleuretthe path forward for saving peer reviews: (1) Fight fire with fire full-AI for reviewing (2) submission fee (3) required public endorsement for submission (4) distributed reviewing social-media style like/dislike20d
Ravid Shwartz Ziv@ziv_ravid3/ - Reproducibility by default: code, data, and intermediate results mandatory at submission, verified by an agent. No verified reproduction, no publication. Don't want to share everything? Nobody's forcing you to play. - Pay reviewers - real money or real credit.19d
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI

    3 Sources

    Mikel Artetxe@artetxem3/4 papers I reviewed and 2/3 reviews I got this ARR cycle were AI slop. Fraudsters are already outnumbering honest researchers. Unless drastic measures are urgently adopted, conference publications will have zero value or even become negative signal, and academia will be toast.20d
    François Fleuret@francoisfleuretthe path forward for saving peer reviews: (1) Fight fire with fire full-AI for reviewing (2) submission fee (3) required public endorsement for submission (4) distributed reviewing social-media style like/dislike20d
    Ravid Shwartz Ziv@ziv_ravid3/ - Reproducibility by default: code, data, and intermediate results mandatory at submission, verified by an agent. No verified reproduction, no publication. Don't want to share everything? Nobody's forcing you to play. - Pay reviewers - real money or real credit.19d
    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet