arXiv Enforces One‑Year Ban and Mandatory Peer Review for AI‑Generated Submissions

arXiv will impose a one‑year ban on anyone who submits AI‑generated material that does not meet its scholarly‑communication standards.

TL;DR: arXiv now requires peer review for any future submission from banned users and penalizes improper AI‑generated content with a 12‑month suspension.

The preprint server, widely used in physics, astronomy, and related fields, screens submissions for proper sections, figures, tables, and references. Moderators apply the same standards that govern traditional journal articles, looking for clear organization and accurate citations. When a submission lacks these elements—or contains AI‑generated text, fake references, or nonsensical diagrams—it is deemed inappropriate under the new policy.

Thomas Dietterich, an emeritus professor at Oregon State University and member of arXiv’s editorial advisory council, announced the rule in a public X thread. He stated that submissions must comply with appropriate standards of scholarly communication in form, including carefully prepared sections, figures, tables, and references. Violating this rule triggers a 12‑month ban from arXiv and a permanent requirement that any future submission from the same author pass peer review before being hosted.

The move addresses a growing problem: AI‑generated slop—uncited prompt outputs, fabricated citations, and meaningless graphics—has slipped into peer‑reviewed literature across disciplines. By tying bans to mandatory review, arXiv aims to deter low‑effort AI submissions while preserving the server’s role as a rapid‑share platform.

Watch for how other preprint servers and journals respond, and whether the ban leads to a measurable drop in AI‑generated flagged submissions over the next six months.