Science, or slop?
Science, or slop?
A paper can read well sentence by sentence while its science does not connect. Unlike token-level AI detectors, the Science Slop Index reads the scientific reasoning: whether sections build on one another, claims and citations are argued, and the method and evidence can be inspected.
Analyze→
Paste a link or upload a PDF / LaTeX .zip. Your report is private: you get a key, and you decide on the report whether to list it.
SciSlop v2 is being written with the community. Flag slop on any paper and become a co-author. How ↓
Papers analyzed so far
· Leaderboard · Gallery
Click the center paper to open its full report; click a side one to bring it forward. Highlights on each first page are the findings.
‹ ›
Open call · SciSlop v2
Become a co-author of SciSlop v2.
The next version is built from what the community finds. Mark slop the index missed, dispute what it got wrong, name patterns it does not know yet. Every contribution is credited. Substantial ones earn co-authorship on the v2 paper.
Open in reader →
◫Try it on an AI-written paperflag what the index missed ✎Check your own draftscore it, fix what the index gets wrong ＋Propose a new patternno paper needed
Contributors
Everyone who flagged slop or named a pattern. Substantial contributors are invited as co-authors of SciSlop v2.
Team
The people behind Science or Slop? and this site.
Cite
If you use the Science Slop Index, SciSlopBench, or the code, please cite the paper.
@article{oh2026scislop, title = {Science or Slop?: Benchmarking and Mitigating Scientific Slop in AI-Generated Papers}, author = {Oh, Yerim and Lee, Young-Jun and Ahn, Jaewoo and Kim, Gunhee and Kang, Dongyeop}, journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv:2610.00531}, year = {2026}, eprint = {2610.00531}, archivePrefix = {arXiv}, url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.00531} }
Copy BibTeX
How it works
Six measures, three planes, one number
Each measure counts the share of a paper's units that show one pattern. The index averages the measures within each plane, then averages the planes, and reports the result out of 100. Higher means more of the patterns that set AI-generated papers apart from matched human papers.
Reads the paper, not the prose
AI text detectors score sentences: how predictable each token is, how a model would have phrased it. A paper written or revised by a language model can pass that test and still fail as science. Each paragraph looks fine on its own while the connections between paragraphs do not hold: a figure that no section ever refers to, a claim that arrives before anything leads up to it, a related-work paragraph that lists citations without relating them, a method diagram crowded with hyperparameters, a results table with no concrete example anywhere in the paper.
The Science Slop Index counts these breakdowns. It reads the whole paper, groups six patterns into three planes, and asks three questions. Below, each plane is illustrated with real findings from the papers analyzed on this site; use the arrows to browse them, and click a finding to open it on the paper.
What happens to a paper
Every report receives a key that reopens it later. Uploaded files are deleted after analysis; only the report and rendered figures stay.
1Read
LaTeX source is read directly; arXiv links fetch the source and the PDF. PDFs are rebuilt into sections, captions, references, and citations.
2Measure
Four measures are exact counting rules. Argument graph and Figure exposition ask a language model to label sentences and read the method figure.
3Highlight
Every flagged unit is placed back on the PDF, colored by plane, with a graph per measure. Export as highlighted PDF, JSON, or CSV.
The six measures
After Table 1 of the paper. Each score is a share of units: the numerator over the denominator. Pair accuracy is how often that measure alone ranks the human-written paper above its AI-generated counterpart on SciSlopBench.
One number
The index averages the measures within each plane, then averages the three planes. A measure that does not apply to a paper is skipped, not counted as zero.
0204060100
LowModerateHighVery high
The four bands are descriptive cut-points on the share of flagged units, not a probability of AI authorship.
Reported pair accuracy
Table 2 of the paper: on SciSlopBench, 390 AI-generated papers each matched with a human-written paper on the same problem. 0.5 is chance.
Leaderboard ↗
Papers analyzed on this site, ranked by Science Slop Index. Higher means more scientific slop. Click a row to see its six measures; open the report for every finding on the paper.
Rank by
— papers⇕
List Chart Table
Science Slop Index Science Slop Index
Gallery
Papers analyzed so far
Papers analyzed from public links, and uploads whose owners chose to list them. Ranked by Science Slop Index.
View report
Open a report
Enter the report key you received when you submitted your paper.
Open
Recent on this browser
Or open a downloaded report
Open a report file (.json)
Propose a pattern
Propose a scientific slop pattern
Seen a recurring way AI-generated papers break as science that the six measures miss? Name it and say what a reader notices. We do the rest: implement it, run it on SciSlopBench, and adopt it if it separates AI from human papers, with your name on it.
Name the pattern
Where it lives
Structure Argument Artifacts Something else
What a reader notices one sentence
Optional: how it would be counted Unit of analysis
Score = share of units
What a score of 100 means How to detect it
Your name for the credit Affiliation
Submit Public: it is filed as an issue in the project repository, so you can follow the review.