ArXiv Will Ban Researchers Who Let AI Write Their Papers
ArXiv, one of the most widely used preprint repositories in science and technology, has drawn a firm line against the unchecked use of artificial intelligence in research submissions. Under its new policy, authors whose papers carry incontrovertible evidence of unreviewed AI-generated content will face a one-year ban from the platform, making the ArXiv AI generated papers ban one of the most consequential enforcement moves in academic publishing this year.
The announcement came from Thomas Dietterich, chair of ArXiv’s computer science section, who posted the policy on social media last Thursday. According to Dietterich, if a submission shows clear signs that the authors did not bother to verify what the AI produced, “we can’t trust anything in the paper.” Red flags that would trigger enforcement include hallucinated references and prompt-and-response exchanges left visible in the document.
The ArXiv AI generated papers ban is notably not a blanket prohibition on using tools like ChatGPT or other large language models. What ArXiv is demanding is accountability. Authors remain fully responsible for everything in their submissions, regardless of how the content was generated. Copying errors, fabricated citations, biased language, or misleading claims straight from an AI output, without correction or verification, is now grounds for removal.
Dietterich told 404 Media that the rule works on a one-strike basis, though it will not be applied lightly. Moderators must first flag the violation, and a section chair must confirm the evidence before any ban is imposed. Authors will also have the right to appeal.
This is not ArXiv’s first move against what critics have called “AI slop” flooding research channels. The platform had already required first-time submitters to get endorsements from established authors to curb low-quality submissions. Additionally, after more than two decades under Cornell’s umbrella, ArXiv is becoming an independent nonprofit, a move expected to give it greater capacity to tackle the growing problem.
The stakes are real. Recent peer-reviewed research published in The Lancet found that fabricated citations are rising in biomedical research, with AI tools likely to blame. Scientists are not the only ones implicated either. Even Anthropic’s own legal team was embarrassed when an AI-hallucinated citation slipped into a court filing.
For researchers, the message from ArXiv is straightforward: use AI if you want, but own every word that ends up in your paper.
