arXiv to Issue One-Year Submission Bans for AI-Generated Content Violations

The preprint server arXiv will impose a one-year submission ban on all listed authors of any manuscript found to contain inappropriate AI-generated content, a member of the server's moderation team announced this week, signaling a harder line against so-called AI slop in scientific publishing.

Thomas Dietterich, an emeritus professor at Oregon State University who serves on both arXiv's editorial advisory council and its moderation team, outlined the new policy in a thread on X, which was also screenshotted on Bluesky for users without accounts on that platform.

Under the policy, authors who submit AI-produced content that violates arXiv's existing moderation standards face two consequences: a one-year ban on new submissions and a permanent requirement that all future manuscripts clear peer review at a journal before arXiv will host them.

Dietterich grounded the policy in language already contained in arXiv's moderation standards. "Submissions to arXiv must comply with appropriate standards of scholarly communication in form, including appropriate and carefully prepared sections, figures, tables, references, etc.," those standards read. "General scrupulousness and care of preparation are required."

The violations Dietterich cited include "inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content" — categories that AI-generated text frequently falls into when submitted without careful human review.

Crucially, the policy holds all listed authors responsible for a manuscript's content, not the AI tool used to produce it. That means a careless submission could result in sanctions for every co-author on a paper, regardless of individual involvement in the offending sections.

Dietterich acknowledged a significant vulnerability in that framework: bad actors could submit flawed content listing individuals as authors who played no role in the work. The server's moderation system does include an appeals process, he noted.

TechEchelon reached out to arXiv leadership for confirmation of the policy but had not received a response at the time of publication.

The sanctions carry particular weight in disciplines such as astrophysics and physics, where posting to arXiv before formal journal submission is a deeply embedded professional norm. Researchers routinely receive substantive feedback on preprints that shapes what they eventually submit for peer review, making a submission ban effectively a disruption to an entire career pipeline.

The move comes as AI-generated errors have surfaced with increasing frequency across scientific publishing, including fake citations, unedited prompt responses, and nonsensical diagrams that slipped through editorial and peer-review processes at established journals. Whether those downstream gatekeepers impose comparable consequences on submitters has remained inconsistent.

arXiv's action suggests that at least some infrastructure in the scientific communication chain is now willing to enforce meaningful penalties before a paper ever reaches formal review, reflecting a broader reckoning with the cost of treating AI output as a shortcut rather than a tool requiring human oversight.