ArXiv to Ban Researchers for a Year if They Submit AI Slop

ArXiv, a major open-access repository for academic preprints, has announced a new policy imposing a one-year ban on authors who submit papers containing obvious AI-generated content, such as hallucinated references or meta-comments from large language models. The policy, clarified by ArXiv computer science chair Thomas Dietterich, holds authors fully responsible for any errors, plagiarism, or misleading content produced by generative AI tools. After the ban, affected authors must have their future submissions accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue before they can post to ArXiv again.

ArXiv, the open-access repository of preprint academic research, will ban authors of papers for a year if they submit obviously AI-generated work. Late Thursday evening, Thomas Dietterich, chair of the computer science section of ArXiv, wrote on X: “If generative AI tools generate inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content, and that output is included in scientific works, it is the responsibility of the author s . We have recently clarified our penalties for this. If a submission contains incontrovertible evidence that the authors did not check the results of LLM generation, this means we can't trust anything in the paper.” Examples of incontrovertible evidence, he wrote, include “hallucinated references, meta-comments from the LLM ‘here is a 200 word summary; would you like me to make any changes?’; ‘the data in this table is illustrative, fill it in with the real numbers from your experiments’.” “The penalty is a 1-year ban from arXiv followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue,” Dietterich wrote.