ArXiv Implements One-Year Ban for Submitting Unverified AI-Generated Content
ArXiv, the leading preprint server for scientific research, has instituted a strict one-year ban for authors submitting papers containing unverified AI-generated content. This policy targets "AI slop," including hallucinated citations and leftover chatbot meta-comments, holding authors fully responsible for their submissions. Offenders must subsequently have future work accepted by reputable peer-reviewed venues before resubmitting to ArXiv. The measure aims to preserve the integrity of scientific literature amidst a surge in low-quality, automated manuscripts, signaling a significant shift in academic publishing standards regarding generative AI usage.
Cross-source coverage
Wire timeline
ArXiv Implements Strict Bans for Unverified AI-Generated Scientific Papers
ArXiv.org, a leading repository for scientific research, has introduced stringent new rules to combat the proliferation of AI-generated content. Thomas G. Dietterich, chair of the Computer Science Section, announced that authors found with incontrovertible evidence of using large language models (LLMs) without verifying results will face a one-year ban. Following the ban, subsequent submissions must first be accepted by reputable peer-reviewed venues. Violations include hallucinated references and leftover AI meta-comments, emphasizing that authors bear full responsibility for all content. This move addresses growing concerns in academia, highlighted by reports that 21% of peer reviews for the 2026 International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) were fully AI-generated. While enforcement poses challenges given arXiv's volume of 24,000 monthly submissions, the policy requires support from both a moderator and a section chair. Reactions from the tech community, including researchers from Meta and DeepMind, have been largely positive, urging strong enforcement to maintain scientific integrity.
PCMag.com - Technology Product Reviews, News, Prices & TipsArXiv Bans Researchers Submitting Unchecked AI-Generated Papers
ArXiv, the prominent preprint server for academic research, has implemented stricter penalties to combat the influx of low-quality AI-generated content, often referred to as 'AI slop.' According to Thomas Dietterich, the computer science section chair, authors found submitting papers with incontrovertible evidence of unchecked Large Language Model (LLM) output will face a one-year ban. Such evidence includes hallucinated references, plagiarized content, or leftover meta-comments from AI tools. Following the ban, any future submissions by these authors must first be accepted by a reputable peer-reviewed venue. This policy reinforces ArXiv's stance that authors bear full responsibility for all content, regardless of generation methods. The move follows previous updates requiring peer review for computer science review articles and position papers, aiming to filter out superficial works churned out by AI. While authors can appeal ban decisions, the platform emphasizes a rigorous internal process involving moderator documentation and Section Chair confirmation before penalties are imposed.
The VergeArXiv to Ban Authors Submitting AI-Generated Hallucinations
The preprint server arXiv is implementing strict new sanctions against authors who submit manuscripts containing AI-generated hallucinations or low-quality automated content. According to Thomas Dietterich, a member of arXiv’s editorial advisory council and moderation team, any submission featuring inappropriate AI-produced material—such as fake citations, nonsensical diagrams, or unedited prompt responses—will result in a one-year submission ban for all listed authors. Furthermore, these authors will face a permanent requirement that their future work must undergo traditional peer review by a journal before arXiv will host it. This policy stems from existing moderation standards that mandate scholarly care and accuracy in form and content. The move addresses the growing issue of AI-generated slop infiltrating scientific literature, where such errors have previously slipped past editors. Since preprints are integral to the publication process in fields like astrophysics and physics, these penalties represent significant professional consequences. The moderation system includes an appeal process to handle potential errors or cases where authors were wrongly listed on flawed submissions.
Ars Technica - All contentarXiv Imposes One-Year Ban for Submitting AI-Generated Content
The physics and astronomy preprint server arXiv has implemented strict new penalties for submitting AI-generated content that violates scholarly communication standards. Thomas Dietterich, an emeritus professor at Oregon State University and member of arXiv’s moderation team, announced via social media that authors submitting inappropriate AI-produced material will face a one-year ban from submissions. Additionally, these authors will be permanently required to have their future manuscripts undergo peer review by a journal before arXiv will host them. This policy targets issues such as fake citations, unedited prompt responses, and nonsensical diagrams that have increasingly appeared in scientific literature. The moderation standards emphasize that all listed authors are responsible for the content's accuracy and preparation, regardless of AI involvement. Violations include errors, misleading content, or plagiarism. While this system can potentially be exploited by listing uninvolved individuals as authors, an appeal process remains available. This move signifies a proactive effort by scientific communities to maintain integrity in preprint servers before formal peer review, addressing the growing problem of low-quality AI-generated submissions in academic fields.
Ars Technica - All contentArXiv to Ban Authors for One Year Over AI-Generated Papers
ArXiv, the prominent repository for preprint academic research, has announced a strict new policy targeting the submission of AI-generated content. According to reports from 404 Media, the platform will impose a one-year ban on any author whose paper contains "incontrovertible evidence" of being generated by artificial intelligence. This regulatory change comes in response to growing challenges faced by ArXiv and similar scientific repositories in managing a surge of AI-created materials that often masquerade as rigorous scientific study. The influx of such content has raised concerns about the integrity and reliability of preprint archives, prompting the need for clearer enforcement mechanisms. By implementing this temporary ban, ArXiv aims to deter the misuse of generative AI tools in academic publishing and maintain the quality of scholarly discourse. The policy highlights the broader struggle within the academic community to adapt to rapid advancements in AI technology while preserving traditional standards of peer review and authorship accountability. This move signals a tightening of controls in the scientific publishing sector as institutions seek to distinguish between human-led research and automated content generation.
TechmemeArXiv Implements One-Year Ban for Researchers Submitting AI-Generated Content
ArXiv, the prominent preprint server for scientific papers, has announced a strict new penalty policy targeting submissions containing unverified AI-generated content, referred to as "AI slop." Thomas Dietterich, chair of ArXiv's computer science section, stated that authors found including hallucinated citations, placeholder text, or chatbot meta-comments in their manuscripts will face a one-year ban from the platform. This "one-strike" rule applies when there is incontrovertible evidence that authors failed to check Large Language Model (LLM) outputs, such as leaving in prompts like "fill in with real numbers." Following the ban, any future submissions by these authors must first be accepted by a reputable peer-reviewed venue. Dietterich emphasized that authors remain fully responsible for all content in their scientific works, including errors or biases introduced by generative AI tools. The enforcement process involves documentation by a moderator and confirmation by the Section Chair, though decisions are open to appeal. This move aims to maintain trust in scientific literature by ensuring rigorous human oversight of AI-assisted research.
Slashdot