ArXiv Imposes One-Year Ban on Unchecked AI Paper Submissions

ArXiv, the preprint repository used across computer science, mathematics, and physics, said Thursday it will suspend authors for 12 months if they submit papers containing unreviewed output from large language models.

The policy was outlined by Thomas Dietterich, chair of the repository's computer science section. Per the announcement, moderators must find "incontrovertible evidence" that authors failed to verify AI-generated text before a submission triggers the penalty.

The repository said qualifying evidence includes fabricated references, nonsensical citations, and direct copy-paste artifacts from a language model. The rule does not prohibit the use of AI tools. It holds authors responsible for every line of submitted content, including plagiarism and factual errors introduced by automated systems.

After a ban expires, authors must place a subsequent paper in a peer-reviewed venue before returning to ArXiv. The policy includes an appeals process. Moderators first flag the submission, section chairs confirm the evidence, and authors may contest the ruling.

The move follows a measurable rise in low-quality submissions. Peer-reviewed studies cited by ArXiv have documented an increase in fabricated citations across biomedical literature, a pattern researchers link to unchecked LLM use. ArXiv has already tightened intake elsewhere, requiring endorsements from established researchers before first-time posters can upload work.

ArXiv hosts millions of preprints and has operated as a primary distribution channel for working papers for more than three decades. The repository transitioned to an independent nonprofit after spending more than 20 years under Cornell University. Officials said the new structure gives the platform broader latitude to enforce content standards.

The one-strike framework applies across all subject sections. Section chairs retain discretion on borderline cases, and the repository said the policy targets authors who skip verification rather than those who use AI for drafting or language polishing.

What it means: ArXiv's penalty regime sets a precedent for how preprint infrastructure handles machine-generated content. The 12-month suspension raises the cost of careless submissions at a moment when generative tools are flooding intake queues. Researchers using LLMs to draft text retain a clear path to publication, but the burden of verifying citations, references, and factual claims now sits squarely with the human author. Other academic platforms are expected to watch the rollout closely.