arXiv bans – arXiv has clarified enforcement under its Code of Conduct: if submissions show incontrovertible evidence that authors did not check results from LLM generation, arXiv can impose a 1-year ban. After that, authors must route future submissions through a reputabl
Attention arXiv authors: the rules about what ends up on the preprint server are getting firmer. and the consequences are spelled out plainly.. arXiv points to its Code of Conduct. which says that by signing as an author. each person takes full responsibility for a paper’s contents—regardless of how those contents were generated.
The platform ties that responsibility directly to generative AI output.. If AI tools produce inappropriate language. plagiarized content. biased content. errors. mistakes. incorrect references. or misleading content. and that material is included in scientific works. arXiv says it becomes the responsibility of the authors.. Now. it has clarified penalties—especially when AI-generated text appears in a way that suggests the underlying results were never actually checked.
arXiv says it can’t trust the paper when a submission contains “incontrovertible evidence” that the authors did not check the results of LLM generation.. In those cases, the penalty is a 1-year ban from arXiv.. After that ban, any subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue.
The examples are specific and pointed.. arXiv lists “hallucinated references” as one type of incontrovertible evidence.. It also highlights telltale meta-comments from the LLM—lines like “here is a 200 word summary; would you like me to make any changes?” and “the data in this table is illustrative. fill it in with the real numbers from your experiments.”
arXiv AI slop generative AI LLM academic publishing peer review research integrity hallucinated references