arXiv tightens rules on AI-written papers, threatens bans for hallucinations

arXiv is warning researchers that careless AI use can now cost them a year of submission access, a sharp response from a platform that sits at the center of fast-moving science. Thomas Dietterich, chair of the computer science section, said a paper showing “incontrovertible evidence” that authors did not check large language model output can trigger a one-year ban, followed by a requirement that future submissions first clear a reputable peer-reviewed venue.

The crackdown follows an October 31, 2025 change in arXiv’s computer science category. Review articles and position papers now must already have been accepted by a journal or conference and must have completed successful peer review before arXiv will consider them for CS. arXiv said the shift was driven by an “unmanageable influx” of such papers, and it explicitly linked that flood to generative AI and large language models, which made it faster and easier to produce manuscripts at scale.

The policy lands on a platform that describes itself as a free distribution service and an open-access archive for nearly 2.4 million scholarly articles. arXiv also says the material on its site is not peer-reviewed by arXiv, which helps explain why the archive is drawing a hard line around trust. Its code of conduct says community members must represent themselves and their work honestly and remain accountable for their decisions, while its enforcement page says penalties can include suspending submission privileges, flagging an account, suspending a user account, and removing, withdrawing, or redacting a submission.

Dietterich gave concrete examples of the kind of failure that could cross the line: hallucinated references and leftover LLM meta-comments embedded in the manuscript. That distinction matters because it frames acceptable assistance not as whether a tool was used, but whether the authors verified the result and stood behind every claim, citation and line of text before submission. In arXiv’s framework, unreviewed machine output is not a harmless shortcut. It is a credibility problem.

The stakes reach well beyond computer science. arXiv is a major preprint gateway for researchers who use rapid posting to establish priority, circulate results quickly and shape scientific discussion before formal publication. That influence means a ban policy can help protect the scholarly record, but it can also sharpen fairness concerns. Early reactions raised questions about whether enforcement might fall unevenly across authors with different levels of institutional support, privilege or notoriety, and how cases involving ghost co-authors or other edge conditions would be handled. If arXiv’s standard holds, it may push broader academia toward stricter verification norms long before journals fully catch up.