Skip to content

R0031/2026-03-29/C006 — Assessment
Research R0031 — Plural Voice Claims (Blind)
Run 2026-03-29
Claim C006

BLUF

The claim is mostly correct but overstates by including NeurIPS. NeurIPS does not prohibit AI authorship — it takes a permissive approach requiring only methodology disclosure. All other named entities do prohibit AI authorship.

Probability

Rating: Likely (55-80%) Confidence in assessment: High Confidence rationale: Each venue's policy was verified against official sources.

Reasoning Chain

  1. FACT: Nature prohibits AI authorship — "LLMs do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria." [SRC01-E01, High reliability, High relevance]
  2. FACT: Science prohibits AI authorship — "An AI program cannot be an author of a Science journal paper." [SRC01-E01, High reliability, High relevance]
  3. FACT: ACM prohibits AI authorship — "Generative AI tools may not be listed as authors." [SRC02-E01, High reliability, High relevance]
  4. FACT: IEEE prohibits AI authorship — "AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors." [SRC02-E01, High reliability, High relevance]
  5. FACT: NeurIPS does NOT prohibit AI authorship — "NeurIPS welcomes authors to use any tool that is suitable for preparing high-quality papers." Disclosure required only when LLM is "important, original, or non-standard component." [SRC03-E01, High reliability, High relevance]
  6. FACT: All five major publishers (Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, SAGE) prohibit AI authorship.
  7. JUDGMENT: The claim is accurate for 9 of the 10 named entities but incorrect for NeurIPS.

Evidence Base Summary

Source Description Reliability Relevance Key Finding
SRC01 Nature/Science policies High High Both prohibit AI authorship
SRC02 ACM/IEEE policies High High Both prohibit AI authorship
SRC03 NeurIPS policy High High Does NOT prohibit AI authorship

Collection Synthesis

Dimension Assessment
Evidence quality Robust — official policy documents
Source agreement High for journals/publishers; NeurIPS is the outlier
Source independence Independent — each venue sets its own policy
Outliers NeurIPS takes a distinctly different approach

Gaps

Missing Evidence Impact on Assessment
NeurIPS may update policy Could change assessment in future

Researcher Bias Check

Declared biases: Pro-technology bias might lead to viewing NeurIPS's permissive stance favorably. Influence assessment: Low — the finding is factual regardless of bias.

Cross-References

Entity ID File
Hypotheses H1, H2, H3 hypotheses/
Sources SRC01, SRC02, SRC03 sources/
ACH Matrix — ach-matrix.md
Self-Audit — self-audit.md