ArXiv Blocks AI-Generated Survey Papers After ‘Flood’ of Trashy Submissions

ArXiv, a free repository founded at Cornell University that has become the reference center for thousands of scientists and technologists in the world to publish the first research papers, no longer accepts journal articles or position papers in its Computer Science category, unless they have already passed peer review in a magazine or conference.

The change in policy, announced on October 31it comes after a “flood” of AI-generated survey papers that moderators describe as “little more than annotated bibliographies.” The repository now receives hundreds of these submissions monthly, from a small stream of historically high-quality reviews written by senior researchers.

“In recent years, arXiv has been flooded with documents,” explains an official statement on the site. “Generative AI/big language models have added to this flood by making papers—especially papers that don’t introduce new research findings—quick and easy to write.”

“We were driven to this decision by a large increase in LLM-assisted survey papers,” added Thomas G. Dietterich, an arXiv moderator and former president of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, on X. “We don’t have the moderator resources to review these submissions and identify the good surveys from the bad.”

Research published in Nature Human behavior found that nearly a quarter of all computer science abstracts showed evidence of a major language model change by September 2024. A separate study in Science Advances demonstrated that the use of AI in research papers published in 2024 has grown since the launch of ChatGPT.

ArXiv’s volunteer moderators still filter submissions for scholarly value and topical relevance, but do not conduct peer review. Journal articles and position papers have never been officially accepted types of content, although moderators have made exceptions for work by established researchers or scientific societies. That discretionary system has broken down under the weight of AI-generated submissions.

The platform now handles a submission volume that has multiplied many times over the past few years, with generative AI making it trivially easy to produce superficial survey papers.

The response from the research community has been mixed. Stephen Casper, an AI security researcher, raised concerns that the policy could disproportionately affect early-career researchers and those working on ethics and governance issues.

“Review/position papers are disproportionately written by young people, people without access to much computing, and people who are not in institutions that have a lot of publishing experience,” he. he wrote in a critique.

Others have only criticized ArXiv’s position as wrong (and also mute), with others also supporting the use of AI to detect AI-generated documents

One problem is that AI detection tools have proven unreliable, with high false positive rates that can unfairly flag legitimate work. On the other hand, a recent study found that the researchers failed to identify a third of medical abstracts generated by ChatGPT as written by the machine. The American Association for Cancer Research reported that less than 25% of authors disclosed the use of AI despite mandatory disclosure policies.

The new requirement means that authors must submit documentation of successful peer review, including journal references and DOIs. Workshop reviews will not meet the standard. ArXiv emphasized that the change only affects the Computer Science category for now, although other sections may adopt similar policies if they face comparable surges in AI-generated submissions.

The move reflects a wider reckoning in academic publishing. Large conferences like CVPR 2025 have implemented policies to reject papers from reviewers flagged for irresponsible conduct. Editors are faced with papers that contain obvious AI, such as one that begins, “Sure, here’s a possible introduction for your topic.”