4 ms·
All these publications constantly complain about being swamped with submissions, even pre-AI. The top-tier ones should probably switch to mail-only for unknown
by yamtaddle 4y ago
All these publications constantly complain about being swamped with submissions, even pre-AI.
The top-tier ones should probably switch to mail-only for unknowns, with an allow-list of authors (those they've previously published, or whom they've rejected but are very interested in seeing more from) who may submit electronically. Hell, they probably should have before this.
- ericbarrett 4y agoRiffing on "mail-only", I'd further suggest: - Include a printout of the story in the submission packet (shipping costs) - Also require a signed (and perhaps notarized) affidavit stating that it's entirely the author's own work* - Require a header/submission form to be filled out by hand (this can be verified quickly with a magnifying glass) It's not perfect; the story could still be generated by AI, for example, and autopens exist. But it would put a very manual cost and effort barrier in front of their submission process, that IMO is still not so high as to discourage legitimate entrants. * Obviously this should be informed by legal counsel, I am not a lawyer, etc.
- ghaff 4y agoAs someone who has been on a lot of conference committees, I wouldn't necessarily require proposals to be sent physically; that would create a lot of work for us. But I do favor limiting the # per person and asking questions other than just the standard abstract that might discourage people who are just spamming everything in sight. Friction isn't always a bad thing.
- ericbarrett 4y agoI don't know that the extra work will be avoidable in the future. I think anything with a public API is going to be gamed and spammed.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]