We earn the right to be on every paper after working on the experiment for around a year. After that it's automatic: there's theoretically a way to remove yours

We earn the right to be on every paper after working on the experiment for around a year. After that it's automatic: there's theoretically a way to remove yourself from specific papers but no one ever does. It's a convoluted process that has to be approved by the highest ranking person in the collaboration. The question about bogus science is an interesting one: In theory by putting 3000 authors on every paper the collaboration we are ensuring more scrutiny for every result. And indeed, our internal review is far more rigorous than the peer review that we get from the journal. As far as I know, no journal has ever rejected a paper from ATLAS or CMS, which is a pretty good track record for O(thousands) of papers. There is a flip-side, of course: this system also hinders innovation. When 3000 people are "authors" on your result, any one of them can to hold it back from publication. We tend to do choose more conservative techniques in the interest of getting anything at all past internal review. Personally, I don't think aiming for a 100% success rate in publication is a healthy way to do fundamental research. I'd rather see some slightly questionable papers submitted to journals now and then, since lowering the bar to get to that stage would mean making more interesting ideas public.