ArXiv, the open preprint repository that has become a cornerstone of scientific publishing, is escalating its fight against low-quality, AI-generated research with a new enforcement policy: one year-long ban for authors who fail to take responsibility for LLM output.
As reported by TechCrunch, the rule, announced by Thomas Dietterich, chair of arXiv’s computer science section, targets submissions that contain “incontrovertible evidence” that authors did not check AI-generated content. That evidence includes hallucinated references—fabricated citations—a problem research shows is on the rise in scientific literature. It also covers direct LLM comments or instructions left inside submitted manuscripts.
“If a submission contains incontrovertible evidence that the authors did not check the results of LLM generation, this means we can’t trust anything in the paper,” Dietterich wrote on X.
The penalty is steep. Offending authors face a one-year suspension from arXiv followed by a requirement that all future submissions first be accepted through a peer-reviewed venue before being posted. Dietterich described it as a “one-strike” rule, though moderators must flag violations and section chairs must confirm the evidence before a ban is imposed. Authors retain the right to appeal.
Crucially, arXiv is not banning LLM use outright. Researchers may use AI tools in their workflow, but they bear full responsibility for the final content. That means if an author copies AI-generated text containing plagiarized material, biased content, fabricated references, or factual errors, they face consequences regardless of the tool that produced it.
“Authors take full responsibility for the content of their submission, irrespective of how the contents are generated,” Dietterich said.
The move comes as arXiv navigates a broader transition. After more than 20 years under Cornell University, the organization is becoming an independent nonprofit, a shift expected to give it more resources to address challenges like AI slop. ArXiv has already required first-time posters to obtain endorsements from established researchers, a barrier aimed at weeding out low-effort submissions.
Fabricated citations have become a flashpoint. Peer-reviewed research published in The Lancet found that fake citations are increasing in biomedical literature, a trend researchers link partly to LLM use. Scientists are not alone—lawyers, firms, and other professionals have also been caught submitting AI-hallucinated citations to courts and other authorities.
The policy puts arXiv ahead of most academic platforms in explicitly addressing AI authorship accountability. Whether it deters misuse or simply shifts it elsewhere remains to be seen.
