In the short term, the solution may be reputation, distributed by keychain. When author C submits a paper and they're unknown to the journal, the journal consu

In the short term, the solution may be reputation, distributed by keychain. When author C submits a paper and they're unknown to the journal, the journal consults the keychain to see whom has vouched for C as a credible researcher. If authors A and B have vouched for them, and A and B are in similarly good standing, C is regarded as being in good stead and the editorial process can move forward as usual. If C is later found to have maliciously faked data, it isn't just C who gets dinged on the keychain, so do A and B by extension, providing an enforcement mechanism. This is, in effect, how it has worked for centuries. Editor D calls/writes to A and B to ask, "hey, there's this new author C with a provocative paper that's in your subject area, but I've never heard of them. Are they the real deal?" If A and B vouch for C, but C turns out to be a fraud, Editor D will take any future consultation with A and B with a large grain of salt. It is possible that AI will soon be able to generate entirely-credible looking papers. What AI will struggle to do, until it starts funding research of its own, is to generate novel research that reflects whatever is actually true of nature. A reputation system is the last bulwark against entropy, if no automated tools can sort wheat from chaff. Lest you think versions of these systems aren't already in place, try posting something to the arXiv as a new author..... https://info.arxiv.org/help/endorsement.html https://info.arxiv.org/help/endorsement.html