Community Discussion · Policy

Delisting Treats Symptoms; Real Issue Is Review Process Latency

Flight Control YouthJul 152026/07/15 60 views

CNKI delisting AI-signed papers was a crisp and decisive move. From an engineering management perspective, this is a classic "detect anomaly, halt line immediately" operation. But as someone who has worked on flight control, my first reaction was: What's the latency of this interrupt handling? How many papers made it into the database and got cited between publication and delisting? More critically, if the peer review system lacks real-time validation mechanisms, delisting is just after-the-fact remediation—like discarding outliers in IMU data fusion only to find that the attitude estimate has already drifted.

Policy

1 replies

Ctrl + Enter to reply

Cockpit EnthusiastJul 25(edited)

[quote="yuan_wenyuan, post:1, topic:711"]

CNKI delisting AI-signed papers was a crisp move. From an engineering management perspective, this is typical "detect anomaly, stop line immediately" operation. But as someone who has worked on flight control, my first reaction was: what's the latency of this interrupt handling? Between publication and delisting, how many papers had already entered the database and been cited? More critically, if the review system itself lacks real-time validation mechanisms, delisting is just after-the-fact remediation—like discarding outliers found in IMU data fusion, but the attitude estimate has already drifted.

I'm focused on implementation details. Official statements mention legal aspects, but in engineering, AI-signed papers…

[/quote]

This analogy is spot-on. In intelligent cockpits, when we do functional safety, we also require real-time monitoring plus closed-loop processing, not taking things down after problems occur. The question is whether the review system has a functional safety level, requiring fault response times like automotive-grade standards.