Rules
JAIGP is the Journal for AI Generated Papers — a multidisciplinary, open-access journal where AIs are authors and humans are prompters. Every paper goes through a transparent, multi-stage review pipeline before acceptance.
Rules marked with a VOTE badge can be changed by community vote. Log in with ORCID to participate.
The Review Pipeline
Every paper passes through 6 stages. Each stage has rules that the community can vote to change.
Key Concepts
Author Badges
Your badge is based on the number of verified publications on your ORCID profile. Badges determine what you can do on the platform.
How Papers Move Forward
After submission, an AI screens for spam. Then another researcher must endorse the paper. Next, AI reviewers evaluate the full PDF. Finally, human peer reviewers and editors decide on acceptance. The rules below govern each of these steps.
These rules control what is required to submit a paper. All submitters must log in via ORCID, provide a PDF, and verify their email. Some rules — like the cover image and how many papers you can have active — are open to community vote.
Concurrent Submission Limits by Badge
How many papers each badge level can have active in the pipeline simultaneously. A slot frees up when a paper is accepted (Stage 5) or desk rejected.
ORCID Required
NON-VOTABLEAll users must authenticate via ORCID iD. This links your real academic identity to all activity on JAIGP.
Email Verification
NON-VOTABLEAfter submitting a paper, you must verify your email within 7 days or the submission expires.
Paper Details
NON-VOTABLESubmissions require a title, abstract, PDF, at least one AI author and one human prompter, and 1–5 subject categories.
After email verification, an AI automatically screens every submission to filter out spam and non-academic content. The vast majority of genuine papers pass. These rules govern what happens when a paper does not pass — how long cooldowns last, and how many rejections trigger a longer block.
AI Screening Prompt
This is the exact prompt used by Claude to screen submissions. To suggest changes, discuss on the community feed.
Show full prompt
You are a quality-control screener for JAIGP (Journal for AI Generated Papers).
Your job is to identify submissions that lack basic academic substance — spam, placeholder text, or content with no scholarly value.
IMPORTANT — do NOT reject based on:
- The paper being AI-generated (this is expected and desired)
- Writing style, grammar, or prose quality
- Topic novelty or perceived importance
- Short length (a concise paper can still be substantial)
REJECT only if the submission:
- Contains no real academic content (gibberish, lorem ipsum, test text)
- Is clearly promotional material or spam
- Contains harmful, abusive, or unethical content
- Has no discernible research question, methodology, or findings
BORDERLINE if:
- The paper has some academic framing but the abstract is almost content-free
- Claims are stated with zero supporting reasoning or evidence
- The contribution is so vague it is impossible to assess
PASS if:
- A coherent research question or objective is present
- Some methodology, findings, or argument is described (even briefly)
Title: {title}
Abstract:
{abstract}
Respond in exactly this format (no extra text):
OUTCOME: [PASS|BORDERLINE|REJECT]
CONFIDENCE: [HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW]
CONCERN: [one sentence, or "None"]
Before AI review, another researcher must endorse the paper to confirm it deserves review. Who can endorse (based on their badge) and how many endorsements are needed (based on the author's badge) are both votable.
Endorsement Requirements Matrix
Each author badge level has its own endorsement rules. A paper must collect enough endorsements from sufficiently-badged researchers before it can advance to AI review.
Vote on each cell to change the requirements. Options with a red border are the current defaults.
| Author | Min Endorser Badge | Endorsements Needed |
|---|---|---|
| 🔵 New |
Bronze+
Any badge
Copper+
Bronze+
Silver+
Gold only
Copper+ (1)
|
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
Log in with ORCID to vote on this rule. |
| 🟠 Copper |
Bronze+
Any badge
Copper+
Bronze+
Silver+
Gold only
Log in with ORCID to vote on this rule. |
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Log in with ORCID to vote on this rule. |
| 🥉 Bronze |
Bronze+
Any badge
Copper+
Bronze+
Silver+
Gold only
Log in with ORCID to vote on this rule. |
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Log in with ORCID to vote on this rule. |
| 🥈 Silver |
Bronze+
Any badge
Copper+
Bronze+
Silver+
Gold only
Log in with ORCID to vote on this rule. |
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Log in with ORCID to vote on this rule. |
| 🥇 Gold |
Bronze+
Any badge
Copper+
Bronze+
Silver+
Gold only
Log in with ORCID to vote on this rule. |
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Log in with ORCID to vote on this rule. |
Endorsed papers go through full AI review via Reviewer3.com. Multiple AI reviewers evaluate the PDF and provide comments. Authors can revise and resubmit. These rules set how many revision attempts are allowed.
Each stage has a deadline. If a paper sits too long without action, it becomes stale. Authors can request extensions. These rules set the deadlines and extension durations.
These meta-rules govern the voting system itself — how often votes are tallied and how many voters are needed for a rule change to take effect.
Human Peer Review (Stage 3 → 4)
ForthcomingEditorial Decision (Stage 4 → 5)
ForthcomingHow Voting Works
Casting your vote
- Click any option to vote. Your vote is recorded instantly.
- You can change your vote at any time before the period ends.
- Your previous vote carries forward — if you don't vote this period, your last vote still counts.
- Options with a red border are the current defaults.
How results take effect
- At the end of each voting period, all votes are tallied. The option with the most votes wins.
- A minimum quorum of 10 voters is required. If quorum is not met, the current value stays.
- In case of a tie, the status quo is maintained.
- Both the quorum size and the voting frequency are themselves subject to community vote.