Other issues include hallucinated references, fake results, and stray meta-instructions indicating lack of human verification.

ArXiv will impose a one-year ban on authors whose submissions contain incontrovertible AI-generated or AI-assisted content that is inappropriate, plagiarized, biased, erroneous, or misleading, with resubmissions only allowed after acceptance at a reputable peer-reviewed venue.

The policy follows a series of steps from 2025 aimed at curbing AI slop, including bans on CS review articles and position papers and requiring endorsements from established authors for first-time submissions.

Dietterich indicated the policy would apply to AI-generated content at arXiv, with consequences potentially starting at submission rather than waiting for formal peer review.

Audits show a rise in hallucinated citations with AI adoption, highlighting enforcement challenges for moderators and authors.

The move reflects a shift between speed of preprint sharing and the need for disciplined verification as AI tools assist drafting and editing.

Examples of problematic content include AI-generated material such as fake citations and data tables not backed by actual experiments.

Author reporting on AI culture, research integrity, and arXiv policy developments underscores the evolving landscape.

The policy treats unchecked AI output as an authorship failure, keeping human responsibility on the paper’s authors.

There are market implications for AI tools like reference managers and writing assistants, which will need stronger verification features to prove cited sources exist.

The piece cites broader concerns about AI-generated content in research, including an ASM piece on AI in antibiotic discovery and a Forbes report on AI sloppiness.

Dietterich, as chair of arXiv’s CS section, stresses the policy applies only in clear cases where authors did not verify AI-generated results.