arXiv to enforce one-year bans for authors submitting AI-generated hallucinations
Thomas Dietterich of the editorial advisory council outlines new moderation standards targeting fabricated citations and nonsensical diagrams in scientific submissions.
The scientific preprint server arXiv is implementing a stringent enforcement policy targeting authors who submit inappropriate artificial intelligence-generated content. The measure mandates a one-year suspension of submission privileges for individuals found in violation, with future manuscripts from these authors required to undergo formal peer review by a journal before being hosted on the platform.
Thomas Dietterich, an emeritus professor at Oregon State University and a moderator on the arXiv editorial advisory council, announced the policy via a social media thread. While official confirmation from arXiv leadership has not yet been provided to reporting outlets, Dietterich’s position on the moderation team lends significant weight to the announcement. The policy is grounded in existing moderation standards that require general scrupulousness and care of preparation in scholarly communication.
Violations under the new guidelines include fabricated citations, unedited prompt responses, nonsensical diagrams, inappropriate language, plagiarised content, biased material, errors, and misleading content. The policy explicitly states that authors remain fully responsible for any AI-generated material that breaches these standards, shifting accountability away from the technology and onto the researchers submitting the work.
The sanctions are particularly severe for fields such as physics and astronomy, where posting preprints is a standard part of the publication process. Scientists in these disciplines frequently utilise feedback on preprints to refine manuscripts before formal peer review. The new rules aim to prevent flawed content, including lists of authors who have never been involved in the research, from slipping past editors and reviewers.
An appeal process is included within the policy for those affected by the enforcement actions. The move follows growing concerns about AI-generated slop appearing in peer-reviewed literature, with fake citations and nonsensical diagrams increasingly slipping through editorial checks. The policy underscores the platform’s intent to maintain integrity in scientific discourse as reliance on generative tools expands.
