Submit AI slop to arXiv. Earn a year off from science.

The arXiv preprint server — where physicists and astronomers post papers before peer review — is enforcing a hard rule against AI-generated slop. Get caught submitting content with hallucinated references, unedited AI responses, or fabricated material, and every author listed on the paper receives a one-year submission ban, plus a permanent requirement that future papers pass journal peer review before arXiv will host them.

Thomas Dietterich, an emeritus professor at Oregon State and a member of arXiv's moderation team, announced the policy on social media. It flows from arXiv's existing standards requiring "general scrupulousness and care of preparation." The new enforcement makes the point explicit: AI doesn't own the mistake. If the authors submitted it, the authors are responsible. Dietterich cites "inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content" as the kinds of violations that trigger the ban.

For fields where posting preprints is part of the normal publication process, a year-long ban isn't a light tap on the wrist. Scientists rely on preprint feedback to improve work before formal submission. The moderation system includes an appeal process, which will presumably be relevant fairly soon. On Monday, arXiv leadership confirmed to Ars Technica that this is official policy.