ArXiv to suspend researchers for a year over fully AI-generated papers

ArXiv, one of the most widely used open repositories for preprint scientific research, is taking stronger action against the careless use of large language models in academic papers.

Although papers uploaded to arXiv are typically published before undergoing formal peer review, the platform has become one of the primary channels through which research spreads across fields such as computer science, mathematics, physics, and related disciplines. Over the years, arXiv — pronounced "archive" — has also become an important source of data for tracking broader trends in scientific research and academic publishing.

We've already introduced several measures to reduce the number of low-quality and AI-generated research submissions on the site. For example, arXiv previously required that first-time authors receive endorsements from established researchers before they could post papers publicly.

At the same time, after operating under Cornell University for more than two decades, arXiv is transitioning into an independent nonprofit organisation. That move is expected to help the repository raise additional funding to address challenges, including the increasing amount of AI-generated "slop" appearing in scientific publishing.

In its latest effort to tighten standards, Thomas Dietterich — the chair of arXiv's computer science section — published a statement on Thursday outlining new penalties for papers that appear to contain unchecked AI-generated content.

Dietterich said that if a submitted paper contains "incontrovertible evidence" showing that the authors failed to review or verify material generated by large language models, then moderators can no longer trust the paper's validity.

According to Dietterich, examples of that "incontrovertible evidence" may include fabricated or hallucinated references, as well as visible comments exchanged with an LLM that were mistakenly left inside the submission.

If moderators identify those kinds of issues, authors could face a one-year suspension from arXiv. After that suspension period ends, any future submissions from those authors would first need to be accepted by a reputable peer-reviewed publication venue before they could appear on arXiv again.

Importantly, the updated policy does not completely ban the use of large language models in academic writing or scientific research.

Instead, the policy emphasises that researchers must take what Dietterich described as "full responsibility" for everything included in a paper, regardless of whether the content was written manually or generated with AI tools.

That means authors remain accountable if they directly copy and paste problematic material from AI systems into their research papers. This includes inappropriate wording, plagiarised text, biased information, factual errors, inaccurate citations, misleading claims, or entirely fabricated references generated by an LLM.

Dietterich also told 404 Media that the enforcement system will operate under a "one-strike" approach. However, moderators will first need to identify and flag the issue, and section chairs must confirm the evidence before any suspension is officially applied. Researchers who receive penalties will also have the opportunity to appeal the decision.

The stricter enforcement comes at a time when concerns are growing across academia regarding the increasing use of AI-generated content in scientific literature. Recent peer-reviewed studies have found that fabricated citations and nonexistent references are becoming more common in biomedical research papers, with many experts believing large language models are contributing to the problem.

At the same time, researchers are not the only people facing criticism over AI-generated misinformation and fake citations, as similar issues have appeared across journalism, publishing, and online content creation more broadly.