@RomanVanek7: arXiv Now Takes Just Two New Papers a Month From Each Submitter
Summary
arXiv has capped submitters at two new papers per month (plus an existing three active-submission limit) to cope with record submission volumes and a surge in AI-assisted papers that its volunteer moderators say fall short of scholarly standards.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 10/04/26, 09:10 AM
arXiv Now Takes Just Two New Papers a Month From Each Submitter https://t.co/nfrIMHW9rT
arXiv Now Takes Just Two New Papers a Month From Each Submitter
Source: https://allatra.media/news/ai-tech-arxiv-caps-submitters-two-papers-a-month?utm_source=x&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share arXiv now accepts two new submissions per calendar month from each submitter, a limit that took effect Oct. 1, 2026. The repository is also keeping its existing ceiling of three active submissions at any given time.
The change, arXiv says, is meant to spread its volunteer moderators’ time evenly across authors and to protect its collection from a sharp rise in submissions that fall short of its standards. It calls the policy a stopgap while it settles what the right practice is for authors using ever more capable AI tools. Work goes onto arXiv before peer review, so the cap sets how much any one researcher can put in front of its readers each month.
The counts behind the change are arXiv’s own.Its policy postsays the archive received 40,363 submissions in September, which it calls a new record, and that those generated almost 9,000 support tickets for staff and moderators. Submissions have doubled in two years, and those to the computer-science AI category have risen more than sixfold over the same period.
arXiv’s rules already allow authors to use AI as a tool in their research if they disclose it and the work meets the archive’s standards for scholarly interest. arXiv says many of the submissions now arriving do not. Its moderators are seeing more thin papers of narrow scope, more single works broken up and submitted as several smaller ones, and more densely AI-written text. It says a small proportion of authors accounts for much of that volume, which can delay other authors’ papers by days or weeks.
The limit counts submissions rather than announced papers, so a rejected paper still counts against the month’s allowance. A paper deleted before it is announced does not. It applies across all categories and only to whoever uploads a paper, not to co-authors. The active-submission ceiling is not new: arXiv has had it since 2024.
The archive says it will keep watching how the update affects authors and readers, and change it as needed.
Similar Articles
Fighting AI slop in science papers
arXiv announced a new rate-limiting policy capping submitters at two papers per month after AI-driven submission volumes surged, with moderators reporting a rise in low-quality AI-written and 'salami-sliced' papers overwhelming the platform.
Research repository ArXiv will ban authors for a year if they let AI do all the work
ArXiv is implementing a new policy that bans authors for one year if submitted papers show clear evidence of unchecked AI generation, such as hallucinated references or LLM comments, reinforcing that authors are fully responsible for content regardless of how it was produced.
Send the arXiv AI-generated slop, get a yearlong vacation from submissions
arXiv will ban submitters of AI-generated content that violates moderation standards for one year, requiring future submissions to undergo peer review before hosting.
ArXiv will ban researchers who upload papers full of AI slop
ArXiv, a popular preprint platform, will ban authors for one year if they submit papers containing clear signs of unchecked LLM-generated content, such as hallucinated references or LLM meta-comments, to reduce AI slop.
@tdietterich: We are seeing a new trend in submissions to @arxiv (and presumably to conferences and journals): Authors submitting pap…
The author observes a new trend in arXiv submissions where authors may not understand the content of their papers, raising concerns about research integrity.