arXiv will ban submitters of AI-generated content that violates moderation standards for one year, requiring future submissions to undergo peer review before hosting.
<p>AI-generated slop has shown up everywhere, including in the peer-reviewed literature. Fake citations, unedited prompt responses, and <a href="https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/scientists-aghast-at-bizarre-ai-rat-with-huge-genitals-in-peer-reviewed-article/">nonsensical diagrams</a> have all slipped past editors and peer reviewers, and it's not always clear if there are any consequences for the people responsible.</p>
<p>Now, it appears that a number of scientific fields will be enforcing rules against AI-generated problems even before peer review or journals get involved. One of the people involved in the physics and astronomy preprint server arXiv used a social media thread to announce that any inappropriate AI-produced content submitted to the server will result in a one-year ban and a permanent requirement that future publications undergo peer review before the arXiv will host them.</p>
<p>Thomas Dietterich, in addition to being an emeritus professor at Oregon State University, is heavily involved with arXiv, serving on its <a href="https://info.arxiv.org/about/people/editorial_advisory_council.html#section-editorial-committees">editorial advisory council</a> and on its <a href="https://arxiv.org/moderators/">moderation team</a>. So he's in a good position to understand the organization's policies, although we have also reached out to arXiv leadership for confirmation, but have not yet received a response.</p><p><a href="https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/05/preprint-server-arxiv-will-ban-submitters-of-ai-generated-hallucinations/">Read full article</a></p>
<p><a href="https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/05/preprint-server-arxiv-will-ban-submitters-of-ai-generated-hallucinations/#comments">Comments</a></p>
# Send the arXiv AI-generated slop, get a yearlong vacation from submissions
Source: [https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/05/preprint-server-arxiv-will-ban-submitters-of-ai-generated-hallucinations/](https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/05/preprint-server-arxiv-will-ban-submitters-of-ai-generated-hallucinations/)
AI\-generated slop has shown up everywhere, including in the peer\-reviewed literature\. Fake citations, unedited prompt responses, and[nonsensical diagrams](https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/scientists-aghast-at-bizarre-ai-rat-with-huge-genitals-in-peer-reviewed-article/)have all slipped past editors and peer reviewers, and it’s not always clear if there are any consequences for the people responsible\.
Now, it appears that a number of scientific fields will be enforcing rules against AI\-generated problems even before peer review or journals get involved\. One of the people involved in the physics and astronomy preprint server arXiv used a social media thread to announce that any inappropriate AI\-produced content submitted to the server will result in a one\-year ban and a permanent requirement that future publications undergo peer review before the arXiv will host them\.
Thomas Dietterich, in addition to being an emeritus professor at Oregon State University, is heavily involved with arXiv, serving on its[editorial advisory council](https://info.arxiv.org/about/people/editorial_advisory_council.html#section-editorial-committees)and on its[moderation team](https://arxiv.org/moderators/)\. So he’s in a good position to understand the organization’s policies, although we have also reached out to arXiv leadership for confirmation, but have not yet received a response\.
In a[thread on X](https://x.com/tdietterich/status/2055000956144935055)\(also[screenshotted on Bluesky](https://bsky.app/profile/aniloza.bsky.social/post/3mltoq2cnhc2u), for those without X accounts\), Dietterich described the new policy as arising directly from the arXiv’s[moderation standards](https://info.arxiv.org/help/moderation/index.html)\. “Submissions to arXiv must comply with appropriate standards of scholarly communication in form, including appropriate and carefully prepared sections, figures, tables, references, etc\.,” those standards read\. “General scrupulousness and care of preparation are required\.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
arXiv announces a 1-year ban for authors whose papers contain unchecked LLM-generated errors like hallucinated references, emphasizing author responsibility for all content regardless of generation method.