arXiv tightens moderation for computer science papers amid flood of AI-generated review articles

The research platform arXiv is adjusting how it moderates submissions in its computer science category following what it called an "flood" of review papers and position papers - many of them generated with AI.

From now on, these types of articles must already have been accepted by a journal or conference and passed peer review before being uploaded to arXiv.

Authors will need to provide proof of acceptance when submitting. Without that confirmation, arXiv says the paper will likely be rejected.

Volunteer moderators struggle with AI paper surge

In recent years, submissions to arXiv have surged, a trend the platform attributes in part to generative AI and large language models. These tools have made it easy to mass-produce certain types of papers. Many of the submitted review articles amount to little more than an “annotated bibliography” with minimal original discussion, according to arXiv.

Such papers used to be rare and of high quality, but now they represent one of the easiest outputs for AI “paper factories” to churn out. The new policy aims to ease the burden on arXiv’s volunteer moderators so they can focus on the platform’s core mission - providing fast, open access to research. Since arXiv lacks the resources to conduct in-depth quality checks itself, it will now rely more heavily on external peer review as a filter.

Peer review as the external quality gate

Technically, arXiv notes, this isn’t a new rule. Review and position papers were never officially part of the platform’s accepted content types, though moderators previously allowed them at their discretion. Regular research papers - including those exploring the social impacts of technology - are unaffected by the change.

If similar waves of AI-generated submissions appear in other subject areas, arXiv says it may extend these moderation measures to additional fields.