# arXiv Is Rate Limiting Authors Following a Flood of AI Slop Submissions > Source: > Published: 2026-10-09 14:44:50+00:00 # arXiv Is Rate Limiting Authors Following a Flood of AI Slop Submissions arXiv now limits authors to two submissions a month as AI slop overwhelms moderators, delays good papers, and sparks debate over applying the limit to everyone. - Sarah Gooding Low-quality submissions are overwhelming arXiv’s volunteer moderators and delaying quality papers for days or weeks. The preprint repository is now limiting each submitter to two submissions per calendar month. The [new policy](https://blog.arxiv.org/2026/10/01/updated-rate-limit-policy/), effective this month, applies across all subject categories. It adds a monthly cap to an existing limit of three active submissions at a time, in place since 2024. Rejected papers count toward the monthly total, too, since a paper that gets bounced has already consumed a moderator's time. September brought a record 40,363 submissions, up from 20,569 in September 2024 and 9,869 a decade earlier. Last month’s submissions also generated almost 9,000 support tickets for staff and moderators. Within computer science, the artificial intelligence category, cs.AI, has seen submissions grow more than sixfold in two years. arXiv attributes part of that growth to AI tools making research faster and easier. But its moderators are also wading through a growing mass of papers that fail to meet its scholarly standards: Our moderators are observing an increase in thin papers of narrow scope, as well as ‘salami’ papers, where a single work is broken up and submitted as a set of smaller papers. There is also a marked increase in dense, AI-written papers. AI tools are making it easy for authors to flood arXiv and other repositories with these low-value papers. The repository still permits AI tools in support of research, provided their use is disclosed and the work meets its standards. Its complaint is about what authors are submitting and how much human effort it takes to sort through it. ## Low-quality submissions are delaying good papers[#](#Low-quality-submissions-are-delaying-good-papers) Thomas Dietterich, chair of arXiv’s Editorial Advisory Council and a distinguished professor emeritus at Oregon State University, puts the cost to other researchers plainly: However, a relatively small proportion of authors are submitting a large number of low-quality papers and consuming a disproportionate fraction of the moderators’ time. This is unfair to authors who continue to submit quality papers — their papers can be delayed for days or weeks as a result. arXiv says the cap on submission is a stopgap while it improves moderation and updates its guidance on AI use. The rules follow the person who submits a paper. Co-authors do not use up their own allowance when somebody else submits it. ## arXiv has been tightening the rules for nearly a year[#](#arXiv-has-been-tightening-the-rules-for-nearly-a-year) arXiv’s moderators expected a wave of fake papers after ChatGPT launched in 2022, but saw no change through 2024. In a [January interview with Science](https://www.science.org/content/article/arxiv-preprint-server-clamps-down-ai-slop), Ralph Wijers, then chair of arXiv’s editorial council, said AI slop submissions began surging in early 2025, first in computer science and then in other fields. Wijers estimated in January that the rejection rate had risen from a historical average of about 4% to roughly 10%–12%. He said moderators could reject some submissions at a glance, citing “a four-page paper that has 50 subsections in it, some of which do not contain any text.” By then, arXiv had already begun tightening access. Last October, arXiv’s computer science moderators [stopped considering review articles and position papers without successful peer review](https://blog.arxiv.org/2025/10/31/attention-authors-updated-practice-for-review-articles-and-position-papers-in-arxiv-cs-category/) and acceptance at a journal or conference. These papers had previously been admitted at moderators’ discretion. arXiv said it was receiving hundreds of review articles a month, most amounting to annotated bibliographies without substantial discussion of open research questions. LLMs had made them easy to churn out, and moderators lacked the time to assess them alongside original research. In December, the mathematics section [tightened its endorsement requirements](https://blog.arxiv.org/2025/12/10/updated-endorsement-policy-for-arxiv-mathematics/). An institutional email address alone would no longer qualify a new submitter for automatic endorsement. arXiv [extended that change to all sections in January](https://blog.arxiv.org/2026/01/21/attention-authors-updated-endorsement-policy/), explicitly citing an unsustainable influx of non-scientific submissions. New submitters now need both an institutional email and previous authorship on an accepted paper in the relevant endorsement domain, or a personal endorsement from an established arXiv author in that domain. Wijers told Science that “almost all the AI generated rubbish comes from first-time submitters.” The endorsement requirement was intended to make those authors get somebody in their field to vouch for them before entering the queue. By May, arXiv had clarified penalties for unmistakably unchecked AI output: a one-year submission ban for all listed authors, followed by a requirement that future submissions first pass peer review. Hallucinated references and leftover chatbot instructions were among the examples Dietterich identified. [Ars Technica reported the sanctions](https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/05/preprint-server-arxiv-will-ban-submitters-of-ai-generated-hallucinations/) and subsequently received confirmation from arXiv leadership that they were official policy. The new monthly cap applies to every submitter, including established authors with a record of accepted papers. Other repositories have gone further. The generalist preprint server hosted by OSF [suspended new submissions in August 2025](https://www.cos.io/blog/suspension-of-submissions-to-generalist-preprint-server-for-review-and-next-steps-community-servers-hosted-by-osf-preprints-remain-active), and the Center for Open Science later [extended that suspension indefinitely](https://www.cos.io/blog/update-on-future-of-osf-preprints). Nosek told Science that a majority of its submissions had been very low quality. PsyArXiv, a separate community-run service hosted by OSF, [switched to moderating papers before publication](https://blog.psyarxiv.com/2025/08/20/changes-to-moderation-at-psyarxiv-preprints/) in August 2025. ## Researchers push back on the blanket submission cap[#](#Researchers-push-back-on-the-blanket-submission-cap) A recurring objection in the [comments beneath the announcement](https://blog.arxiv.org/2026/10/01/updated-rate-limit-policy/#comments) comes straight from arXiv’s own explanation: if a small group is monopolizing moderator time, why make everyone subject to the same rate limits? Commenter Subhrajyoti Maji [proposes](https://blog.arxiv.org/2026/10/01/updated-rate-limit-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-670) targeting accounts with repeated high-burden submission patterns and judging the policy by turnaround times, appeal outcomes, and its effect on legitimate submissions. He also points out an uneven consequence of the submitter-based rule: a large collaborative team can distribute uploads among multiple qualified researchers. A small group with one or two submitters has much less flexibility. The FAQ explicitly encourages co-authors to coordinate submissions, so that difference follows from how the quota works. The endorsement requirement had already raised a similar concern. Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science, told Science it was reasonable for arXiv, but cautioned that smaller, less established servers could exclude legitimate researchers who lack strong connections. Other participants in the discussion contend that academia has spent years rewarding the behavior arXiv now wants to discourage. Stephen, another participant, [commented](https://blog.arxiv.org/2026/10/01/updated-rate-limit-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-628): Academia needs a new paradigm. “Publish or perish” was always dubious but now it’s becoming deleterious. A commenter using the name TTTT pushes back on the criticism of “salami” papers, arguing that journals can make long articles difficult to publish and force authors to split their work. The same commenter suggests averaging submissions over a longer window to accommodate researchers whose papers become ready in bursts. Several commenters also ask whether revisions to existing papers consume monthly slots. Gabriel Istrate raises the case of conference proceedings published through arXiv, while others worry about journals that depend on arXiv to host revised manuscripts. The announcement’s FAQ does not answer those revision questions. Maji and another commenter suggest using AI to help with triage, including identifying overlapping papers and checking references, while leaving scholarly judgments to humans. For now, arXiv is asking authors with backlogs or conference deadlines to plan around the cap. Its volunteers will keep sorting through the queue, and authors who have reached the limit will have to wait until next month to submit again.