I don't think the editor is to blame, but was surprised he didn't know the rules and didn't seem to mind paywalled AI taking up a high proportion of his publication. But he did act upon my report to him, so I feel a bit sorry that he has more work to do if he wants to get on top of it.

No, I was more surprised that he thinks it's fine as long as its declared. But as you say, there are no rules saying editors must police this. I just thought being a nominator, he would want to ensure he's not promoting machine generated work... or nominating it.

But maybe that's just me being weird. I appreciate that it takes up time to police things, and I know you and James are both hot on trying to keep AI out of your publications. And it's a real pain.

I almost feel sorry for editors who haven't realised this yet. But you have to admit, there's a risk of this stuff getting boosted if people on the program aren't looking out for it, or alert to its existence within their publications.