Research Repository ArXiv to Ban Authors for Submitting Unchecked AI-Generated Papers ArXiv, the influential preprint server that helps set the pace of modern science, is drawing a hard line on “AI slop,” introducing a one‑year ban for researchers who upload papers showing clear signs of unchecked generative AI.

Early concerns and growing AI “slop”

Over the past few years, ArXiv has watched a surge of low‑quality, AI‑assisted submissions, prompting earlier measures such as requiring some first‑time authors to obtain endorsements and tightening rules on certain computer science reviews. As large language models became widespread, moderators began encountering hallucinated references, fabricated data, and leftover chatbot prompts in manuscripts, raising fears that unvetted AI output could pollute the scientific record.

The new one‑year ban

On May 15, 2026, computer science section chair Thomas Dietterich outlined a new enforcement policy: if a paper contains “incontrovertible evidence that the authors did not check the results of LLM generation,” then “we can’t trust anything in the paper.” In such cases, authors will receive “a 1-year ban from arXiv followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue.”

Examples of that evidence include hallucinated references and explicit meta‑comments from chatbots, such as placeholders instructing authors to “fill in with the real numbers from your experiments.” Moderators must first document the problem, and a section chair must confirm it before any penalty is imposed; authors can appeal.

Not a ban on AI, but on carelessness

The rule is framed as a demand for accountability rather than a prohibition on AI. Dietterich emphasized that authors take “full responsibility” for “inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content,” regardless of how it was generated. Researchers may still use AI tools for drafting and editing, but blindly pasting output is now a one‑strike offense.

ArXiv’s move, described by one outlet as a bid to stop researchers who “upload papers full of AI slop,” underscores how central the platform has become to scientific communication — and how seriously it now treats the integrity of non‑peer‑reviewed preprints.

{“quotes”:[{“index”:1,“source”:“web”,“title”:“ArXiv will ban researchers who upload papers full of AI slop”,“text”:“If a paper has “incontrovertible evidence that the authors did not check the results of LLM generation,” such as hallucinated references or “meta-comments” left by an LLM, authors will be banned from ArXiv for a year, according to Thomas Dietterich.”,“url”:“https://www.theverge.com/science/931766/arxiv-ai-slop-ban-researchers”,“authorPubkey”:“c3875abd667e3d145a490ef13c953323db26b96b9da091a409902bf5ee629c9c”,“profilePicture”:null,“xHandle”:null,“xId”:null,“xUserName”:null},{“index”:2,“source”:“web”,“title”:“Research repository ArXiv will ban authors for a year if they let AI do all the work”,“text”:“If such evidence is found, a paper’s authors will face “a 1-year ban from arXiv followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted by a reputable peer-reviewed venue.””,“url”:“https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/16/research-repository-arxiv-will-ban-authors-for-a-year-if-they-let-ai-do-all-the-work/”,“authorPubkey”:“22a173d042acd0b75a45b80787fe1771dcbe171c8934cb343af7b219865595d5”,“profilePicture”:null,“xHandle”:null,“xId”:null,“xUserName”:null},{“index”:3,“source”:“web”,“title”:“ArXiv introduces one-year ban for researchers who submit papers with unchecked AI-generated content”,“text”:“Submissions with “incontrovertible evidence” of unvetted large language model output mean “we can’t trust anything in the paper”.”,“url”:“https://thenextweb.com/news/arxiv-ai-slop-ban-researchers-preprint”,“authorPubkey”:“91fedb0d3ebcbf7a122b1dd4b5b9c476e88914315289be8bdabbb7997647c0cd”,“profilePicture”:null,“xHandle”:null,“xId”:null,“xUserName”:null}]}

Continue reading https://foxvector.com