ArXiv Announces One-Year Ban for Researchers Submitting Unverified AI-Generated Content
Key Takeaways
- ▸ArXiv will ban authors for one year if papers contain unverified generative AI-generated content
- ▸Authors bear full responsibility for validating all LLM outputs, including checking for hallucinations and errors
- ▸Hallucinated references and unchecked LLM meta-comments are considered definitive evidence of policy violation
Summary
ArXiv, the preeminent open-access repository for academic research preprints, has announced that it will impose a one-year ban on authors who submit papers containing unverified AI-generated content. The policy was clarified by Thomas Dietterich, chair of ArXiv's computer science section, in a statement on X (formerly Twitter), emphasizing that authors bear responsibility for validating the accuracy of generative AI outputs before submission.
The ban applies to papers showing 'incontrovertible evidence' that authors did not check LLM-generated results. Specific red flags include hallucinated references, unchecked outputs with meta-commentary from language models (such as 'here is a 200 word summary; would you like me to make any changes?' or placeholder instructions like 'fill it in with the real numbers from your experiments'), and other signs of inadequate verification. Dietterich argued that when papers contain unreviewed generative AI content, it undermines trust in the entire submission, including methodology, results, and conclusions.
After serving a one-year ban, researchers seeking to return to ArXiv must first obtain acceptance from a reputable peer-reviewed venue. This two-tiered penalty structure aims to enforce accountability for AI tool usage in academic research while maintaining the platform's scientific integrity.
- Post-ban re-entry requires prior acceptance at a reputable peer-reviewed venue before ArXiv submission
