ArXiv, one of the world’s most widely used repositories for scientific preprint research, is tightening its stance on careless use of generative AI in academic papers. The platform announced that authors could face a one-year ban if they submit papers containing clear evidence that AI-generated content was not properly reviewed or verified by humans.
According to Thomas Dietterich, chair of ArXiv’s computer science section, the platform’s updated enforcement policy targets submissions that show “incontrovertible evidence” that authors failed to check AI-generated output. Examples include hallucinated references, fabricated citations, or leftover AI-generated meta-comments such as “here is a 200 word summary” or placeholder instructions accidentally included in the final paper.
Under the clarified policy, authors found violating the rules will receive a one-year submission ban from ArXiv. After the ban period ends, any future submissions from those authors must first be accepted by a reputable peer-reviewed journal or conference before being eligible for posting on the platform.
ArXiv emphasized that the policy does not prohibit the use of AI tools entirely. Instead, the platform stated that authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and reliability of all material published under their names, regardless of whether AI systems were used during the writing process.
The stricter enforcement comes amid growing concern within academia over the rise of low-quality AI-generated “slop” papers flooding research repositories and journals. Over the past two years, researchers and publishers have increasingly reported papers containing fake references, fabricated data, incorrect citations, and AI-generated filler text slipping into scientific publishing workflows.
This is not the first time ArXiv has tightened its submission standards because of generative AI. In late 2025, the platform updated its policies to stop accepting certain computer science review articles and position papers unless they had already undergone peer review. ArXiv stated at the time that large language models had made it too easy to rapidly generate superficial academic content with little original research value.
Dietterich reportedly noted that enforcement actions will only apply in cases with very clear evidence and that decisions will go through an internal moderation and review process before penalties are imposed. Authors will also have the ability to appeal ban decisions.
The announcement reflects a broader shift happening across academic publishing as universities, journals, and research institutions attempt to define acceptable uses of AI in scientific work. While many researchers see AI tools as useful for editing, summarization, coding, and productivity support, concerns continue growing around research integrity, misinformation, plagiarism, fabricated results, and the erosion of trust in scientific literature.
