arXiv is not a journal and does not peer review. It has spent thirty years being deliberately permissive, which is most of the reason it works. So when it adds gatekeeping three times in three years, that is worth reading closely.
| Date | Change | What triggers it |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 2023 | Disclosure required, no AI authors | Significant use of generative AI |
| Oct 2025 | CS review and position papers need prior peer review | Submitting either without acceptance elsewhere |
| May 2026 | One year ban | Incontrovertible evidence of unchecked AI output |
The burden moved from disclosing to verifying.
2023: disclose it, own it, do not credit it
The original policy has three parts and has never been withdrawn. Report significant use of generative AI. Take full responsibility for all contents, explicitly including "inappropriate language, plagiarized content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content," however they were generated. And do not list AI tools as authors, because a program cannot take responsibility.
That middle clause is what everything since is built on.
October 2025: the CS survey flood
By late 2025 arXiv's computer science moderators were receiving hundreds of review articles and position papers a month. The announcement said generative AI had "added to this flood by making papers, especially papers not introducing new research results, fast and easy to write," with many amounting to little more than an annotated bibliography.
In the CS category only, review articles and position papers must now be accepted at a journal or conference first, with documentation of that acceptance. This is not a ban on authors and does not touch regular research papers.
May 2026: the one year ban
arXiv will now ban an author for a year where there is incontrovertible evidence they did not check what an LLM produced. Thomas Dietterich, chair of arXiv's CS section, has described what counts: hallucinated citations, fabricated references, and residual prompt text or model commentary left in the manuscript.
The category is not "used AI." It is evidence the output was never read.
It works as a one strike system but not an automatic one. A moderator flags, a section chair confirms, and the author can appeal. After the ban, further submissions must first be accepted at a peer reviewed venue. The reasoning is blunt: if a paper contains proof the authors did not check their model's output, arXiv has no basis for trusting anything else in it.
Inside Higher Ed collected the obvious objection, that the rule is welcome but catches only careless AI use. True, and also a fair description of most of the actual problem.
The mistake that costs a year
Notice what heads the list of triggering evidence. Not tone, not style, not a detector's opinion. A citation to a paper that does not exist.
This is the one item that is fully preventable with a mechanical check, and the most common. The measured rates are not marginal: one widely cited study found 55% of GPT-3.5 citations and 18% of GPT-4 citations entirely fabricated, and a 2026 analysis found fabricated references in biomedical literature rising roughly twelvefold in two years. We covered why models do this separately.
It is also uniquely detectable by a moderator. Unlike a stylistic hunch, a citation either resolves to a real indexed paper or it does not. No probability, no classifier, no argument about writing style.
The failure mode is boring rather than dishonest. You ask for support for a claim, get a plausible reference with real author names and a well formed DOI, and paste it in intending to verify later. Later does not arrive.
What to do
Verify every reference against a real record, not just the suspicious ones, because plausibility is exactly what fabricated citations are good at. Search for the citation before you write it rather than asking a model to produce one. Check the manuscript for stray prompt text before submitting. Disclose significant AI use. And if your CS submission is a survey or position paper, get peer review acceptance first.
In TeXposit the reference panel searches live academic databases and inserts the actual BibTeX for a real indexed paper, so a reference cannot be generated from a model's memory in the first place. DOI import does the same from the other direction, and the assistant can check whether a citation resolves to a real source.
Where this is going
The most permissive venue in scientific publishing has built three layers of gatekeeping in three years. That is a reasonable indicator of where everything less permissive is heading.
None of these policies prohibit using a language model. They penalise shipping its output unverified, which is a different thing and a fairer one.
TeXposit's citation tools are built so every reference traces to a real indexed record. See the references guide.