ArXiv Institutes One-Year Ban for Authors Who Submit AI-Generated Papers Without Review
Key Takeaways
- ▸ArXiv will ban authors for one year if they submit papers with unchecked LLM-generated content; subsequent submissions must be accepted by peer-reviewed venues first
- ▸The policy targets negligence (hallucinated references, unreviewed AI output) rather than banning LLM use entirely
- ▸Authors remain fully responsible for accuracy and ethics of all content, regardless of whether it was AI-generated
Summary
ArXiv, the influential open repository for preprint research, has announced a new policy to combat the careless use of large language models (LLMs) in academic papers. Thomas Dietterich, chair of arXiv's computer science section, announced that papers containing "incontrovertible evidence" that authors did not verify LLM-generated content will trigger a one-year ban from the platform. Evidence of negligence includes hallucinated references, unreviewed comments from LLMs, and other signs of blindly accepting AI outputs without human review.
The policy represents arXiv's latest effort to maintain research quality as AI-generated papers proliferate across its repository. Rather than banning LLMs outright, the policy insists authors take "full responsibility" for all content regardless of how it was created. Researchers remain accountable for plagiarism, bias, errors, incorrect citations, and other issues—even if these originated from an LLM. The rule operates on a "one-strike" basis, with moderators flagging suspect papers and section chairs confirming evidence before sanctions are applied. Authors may appeal decisions.
The move comes as arXiv becomes an independent nonprofit, better positioning it to address growing quality challenges. Recent peer-reviewed research has documented a rise in fabricated citations in biomedical literature, likely driven by LLM hallucinations—a problem the research community hopes this policy will help curb.
- ArXiv's transition to independent nonprofit status enables stronger enforcement of quality standards against AI-generated research abuse
