arXiv yearlong – arXiv’s moderation team is moving to stop AI-generated, low-quality submissions before peer review reaches them, including a yearlong ban and a requirement that future work be peer reviewed before being posted again.
A wave of AI-generated “slop” has been showing up across science. from fake citations to prompt-like text and diagrams that don’t make sense.. The problem is no longer confined to preprints or informal corners of the web—now. one major platform is signaling that it wants a hard line. starting at the submission stage.
One of the leading figures behind the physics and astronomy preprint server arXiv said that inappropriate AI-produced content sent to the site will trigger a yearlong ban.. That penalty would also come with a permanent condition: any future publications would be required to undergo peer review before arXiv will host them.
Thomas Dietterich, an emeritus professor at Oregon State University, is heavily involved with arXiv.. He serves on its editorial advisory council and on its moderation team. and is therefore well placed to explain how the platform’s rules are likely to work in practice.. Misryoum reached out to arXiv leadership for confirmation but had not received a response at the time of publication.
Dietterich framed the change as a direct extension of arXiv’s moderation standards.. In a thread posted on X—also screenshotted on Bluesky for people without access to X—he pointed to arXiv’s published expectations for what “scholarly communication” should look like.. The standards. he wrote. require that submissions comply with appropriate norms in “form. ” including “appropriate and carefully prepared sections. figures. tables. references. etc.”
They also emphasize scrupulousness and care in preparation.. In other words: if a submission reads like it was generated carelessly—complete with errors. incoherent content. or other problems that undermine the basic reliability of what’s being shared—arXiv appears ready to treat it as a moderation issue. not something to be handled later.
The policy arrives as concerns about AI-generated material in science are growing louder.. The same kinds of failures described in the broader debate—fake citations. unedited prompt responses. and nonsensical diagrams—have reportedly slipped past editors and reviewers in some cases. and it has often been unclear what consequences. if any. follow for the people responsible.
For now, arXiv is aiming to move the enforcement upstream. The yearlong ban and the permanent peer-review requirement for repeat offenders would effectively shift the burden onto authors before the preprint server ever posts their work.
arXiv AI-generated content moderation peer review preprints Thomas Dietterich physics and astronomy