ArXiv to ban authors for a year over papers with 'AI slop' and fabricated references

ArXiv is tightening rules against so-called AI slop — scientific manuscripts in which authors insert model-generated text without verification. If the platform detects clear signs of such publication, the punishment will be significant: from a one-year ban to additional restrictions on future uploads.

New Barrier for Preprints

For ArXiv, this is not a cosmetic update to rules, but an attempt to protect the reputation of one of the main preprint archives. The platform has long been a place where researchers quickly publish fresh results before formal journal or conference publication. But as LLM accessibility grows, the flow of manuscripts has begun to include texts assembled with almost no editing: confident in tone, but with erroneous facts, absurd formulations, and references to non-existent works. For a scientific platform, this is no longer a question of style, but a question of trust.

Thomas Dittrich, chair of the computer science section of ArXiv, spoke about the new approach. According to him, sanctions will be applied not for the mere fact of using a model, but for the absence of human verification of results. In other words, the problem is not that authors use LLM as a tool, but that some upload almost raw model output under their own signature. For ArXiv, this violates a basic principle: if you put your name on a work, you are responsible for every reference, formula, and conclusion.

What Will Get You Banned

The key formulation — "irrefutable evidence that authors did not verify the results of LLM generation." This refers to markers that are difficult to explain by ordinary carelessness. This is not a dispute about writing quality and not quibbling about style. If a manuscript contains traces of machine-generated content, showing that the text was not even read before submission, ArXiv will consider this sufficient grounds for sanctions. ArXiv considers exactly such traces to be the most obvious signal of dishonest submission.

• fabricated or non-existent bibliographic references
• service meta-comments from the model accidentally left in the text
• statements contradicting sources and not verified by the author
• traces of automatic insertion showing absence of final proofreading

"If there is irrefutable evidence that authors did not verify the

results of LLM generation, a one-year ban will follow."

This is an important nuance for the academic community. ArXiv is not declaring war on generative tools as such: a researcher can use LLM for drafting, translation, or editing. The red line is drawn where the author stops being an author and becomes a copy-paste operator. The scientific archive is trying to establish a simple rule: automation is permissible, but responsibility for content cannot be delegated to a model, especially when it comes to citations and verifiable facts.

What Awaits Authors

Punishment for such publications will be harsh: a one-year ban on uploading new works to ArXiv. Additionally, as follows from Dittrich's statement, subsequent submissions after such a violation may require additional confirmation of quality — for example, acceptance of the paper at a reputable peer-reviewed conference or journal. For a researcher, this is painful. ArXiv is often used to quickly show results to colleagues, establish priority of an idea, and get early feedback. Loss of this channel for a year is already a serious blow to the visibility of work.

The signal is directed not only at offending authors, but at the entire academic writing market. Over the past year, a layer of services has grown around research that promise to "accelerate publication" using text generation, annotations, and literature review. The new measure shows that scientific platforms are beginning to separate productive AI use from reckless stamping out of manuscripts. The more popular LLMs become, the greater the chance that similar filters will appear in journals, conferences, and data repositories.

What This Means

For researchers, this is a reminder of basic discipline: a model can help assemble a draft, but cannot sign a paper on behalf of a human. For the AI industry, this is another sign that the market is moving away from enthusiasm about "fast generation" toward demands for verification, editorial responsibility, and verifiable quality.