@dysfun @wordshaper @davidgerard Or imagine you're part of a large, multinational research group, and you made a significant contribution early in the process of writing the paper but were unavailable during the submission and publication process (for example, due to illness). one member of the group became required to use LLMs by their corporation after you stopped contributing.
You contributed to the paper, you earned a spot in the author list, but you were unable to discover that there might be a problem, are physically incapable of checking each publication and are relying on your co-authors to do that.
Should you have an avenue to appeal that you should both *have been listed as an author* and *should not be held accountable for your co-authors' actions*? I would expect yes.
Fundamentally, it is important that people be recognized for the work they contribute, and it is imperative that we not add a chilling effect to collaboration and managing credit.
Tools exist to allocate credit for specific types of contributions to papers: writing, doing the math, running experiments, analysing the data, developing the hypothesis. Use this to identify the authors actually responsible for developing the bibliography or writing the LLM-generated pieces (or falsifying the data) and punish them, not the cog in the machine that had no input on that part of the paper.
And establish an appeals process!
