Loading...
Loading...
ArXiv has tightened moderation to deter low-quality, evidently AI-generated preprints that contain hallucinated citations, raw prompts, misleading figures or unverified LLM output. Under the policy, authors of offending submissions face a one-year submission ban and may be required to have future work accepted by a peer-reviewed journal before posting; moderators can reject papers and repeat offenders risk further sanctions. The rules aim to protect arXiv’s role in rapid scientific dissemination and preserve scholarly standards, though critics warn of false positives and complications for legitimate AI-assisted writing. An appeal process and documented moderator review are built into the enforcement framework.
ArXiv's policy affects how researchers use generative AI in manuscripts and sets norms for verification of LLM outputs, impacting submission workflows and moderation expectations for tech professionals.
Dossier last updated: 2026-05-20 01:15:52
arXiv will ban authors for one year if their preprints contain AI-hallucinated references or other clear signs that generative AI outputs were not properly verified. After the ban, authors may only post manuscripts already accepted by a reputable peer-reviewed venue. The policy, announced by computer science chair Thomas Dietterich, aims to curb AI-generated misinformation in preprint submissions and enforce research integrity on the widely used repository for physics and computer science. The move signals growing platform-level governance around generative AI artifacts, and matters because it affects how researchers use LLMs for drafting and citation, and sets a precedent for moderation of AI-derived content in scholarly communications.
arXiv will ban authors for one year if submissions contain AI-hallucinated references or other clear signs of unchecked generative-AI use, and after the ban those authors can only post preprints already accepted by reputable peer-reviewed venues. The policy, announced by arXiv’s computer science chair Thomas Dietterich, aims to prevent unvetted AI-generated content from polluting the preprint record. The rule targets fabricated citations and demonstrable failures to verify AI outputs, reflecting community concern about generative models producing falsehoods. This matters to researchers, publishers, and AI tool developers because it affects dissemination practices, author accountability, and how automated writing tools should be integrated into scholarly workflows.
arXiv will enforce new sanctions against submissions containing inappropriate AI-generated content, announcing a one-year submission ban for offending manuscripts' authors and requiring future submissions to undergo journal peer review before arXiv posting. Thomas Dietterich, an arXiv moderator and editorial advisor, described the policy as grounded in arXiv’s moderation standards demanding scholarly rigor in sections, figures, references and overall preparation. The rule targets AI-produced problems such as fake citations, unedited prompts, biased or erroneous text and misleading figures; all listed authors are held responsible. For fields that rely on arXiv for rapid dissemination, the measures aim to deter careless or deceptive AI use and preserve preprint quality, with an appeal process available.
arXiv will suspend authors for one year for submissions that are low-quality or evidently generated by AI without substantial human contribution, aiming to preserve repository standards. The preprint server’s moderation policy targets “AI slop” — papers with minimal scientific value, poor writing, or probable machine generation — and gives moderators authority to reject or ban repeat offenders. This matters because arXiv is a central distribution channel for fast-moving AI and other research; stricter policing could curb low-effort, automated dumps and protect signal quality, but risks false positives and may complicate legitimate uses of generative tools. The move highlights tensions around AI-assisted writing, academic norms, and platform governance in research dissemination.
ArXiv will ban authors for one year if they submit papers containing incontrovertibly AI-generated errors — such as hallucinated references or LLM meta-comments — that show authors did not verify LLM output. Thomas Dietterich, chair of arXiv's computer science section, said the penalty is a one-strike rule, followed by a requirement that future submissions be first accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue; decisions can be appealed and require moderator documentation and Section Chair confirmation. The move follows arXiv's prior limits on review/position papers and endorsement requirements for first-time submitters amid a surge of AI-generated and fabricated citations that strain peer review. ArXiv, run by Cornell Tech and becoming an independent nonprofit in July, says tougher enforcement is needed to curb 'AI slop.'