The arXiv preprint repository will impose a one-year submission ban on authors who submit papers containing AI-generated “slop” [1].
This policy addresses a growing crisis of quality in scientific publishing. As generative AI tools become more accessible, the flood of low-quality papers threatens to erode trust in preprint archives and waste the time of academic reviewers [3].
The ban applies to manuscripts containing hallucinated citations, placeholder text, chatbot meta-comments, or plagiarized and biased content [2]. The platform specifically targets material that is misleading or contains errors caused by AI tools [2].
“If generative AI tools generate inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content, and that output is included in scientific works, it is the responsibility of the author(s),” said Thomas Dietterich, chair of the Computer Science Department [1].
According to an arXiv spokesperson, the platform will enforce the one-year ban [1] on any author whose paper contains incontrovertible evidence of such AI-generated slop [2]. This threshold of evidence is intended to ensure that researchers are not penalized for the legitimate use of AI assistance, but rather for negligence or deception [2].
The move comes as the scientific community struggles to distinguish between human-led research and automated outputs. By holding authors accountable for the accuracy of their citations and text, arXiv aims to protect the integrity of the global research record [2].
“"We will enforce a one-year submission ban on any author whose paper contains incontrovertible evidence of AI-generated slop."”
This policy signals a shift from treating AI-generated errors as simple mistakes to treating them as professional misconduct. By implementing a time-bound ban, arXiv is creating a deterrent against the 'quantity over quality' approach to publishing, forcing researchers to manually verify every claim and citation produced by large language models.
