ArXiv will ban researchers who upload papers full of AI slop

# ArXiv will ban researchers who upload papers full of AI slop Source: [https://www.theverge.com/science/931766/arxiv-ai-slop-ban-researchers](https://www.theverge.com/science/931766/arxiv-ai-slop-ban-researchers) [](https://www.theverge.com/authors/jay-peters) Jay Peters is a senior reporter covering technology, gaming, and more\. He joined The Verge in 2019 after nearly two years at Techmeme\. ArXiv, a popular platform for preprint academic research, is taking a new step to attempt to reduce the volume of papers that include AI slop\. If a paper has “incontrovertible evidence that the authors did not check the results of LLM generation,” such as hallucinated references or “meta\-comments” left by an LLM, authors will be banned from ArXiv for a year,[according to](https://x.com/tdietterich/status/2055000956144935055)Thomas Dietterich, ArXiv’s section chair of its computer science section\. Future ArXiv submissions will also have to be accepted at “a reputable peer\-reviewed venue\.” Here’s what[he said on X](https://x.com/tdietterich/status/2055000956144935055): > Attention @arxiv authors: Our Code of Conduct states that by signing your name as an author of a paper, each author takes full responsibility for all its contents, irrespective of how the contents were generated\. 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\. 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\. Examples of incontrovertible evidence: hallucinated references, meta\-comments from the LLM \(“here is a 200 word summary; would you like me to make any changes?”; “the data in this table is illustrative, fill it in with the real numbers from your experiments”\) Authors can appeal ban decisions, Dietterich[told*404Media*](https://www.404media.co/new-arxiv-rules-ai-generated-papers-ban/)\. He also noted that this policy will only apply “to cases of incontrovertible evidence” and that “our internal process requires first a moderator to document the problem and then for the Section Chair to confirm before imposing the penalty\.” Last year, ArXiv also updated its policies to reduce AI slop by only allowing computer science review articles and position papers to be published if they have been peer reviewed and have been accepted at a conference or a journal\. “The advent of large language models have made this type of content relatively easy to churn out on demand, and the majority of the review articles we receive are little more than annotated bibliographies, with no substantial discussion of open research issues,”[ArXiv said at the time](https://blog.arxiv.org/2025/10/31/attention-authors-updated-practice-for-review-articles-and-position-papers-in-arxiv-cs-category/)\. **Follow topics and authors**from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates\. - Jay Peters