ArXiv, the popular open-access repository for research papers, has tightened its submission rules for the Computer Science category to combat the surge of low-quality, AI-generated survey papers. The platform, managed by Cornell University, has long been a trusted resource for academics and technologists publishing early-stage research. However, recent advances in generative AI tools have created a flood of machine-generated content, forcing the repository to rethink its policies.
Why the Change?
On October 31, 2025, ArXiv announced that only peer-reviewed review and position papers would now be accepted in its Computer Science section. This decision comes in response to a significant increase in generative AI submissions, which moderators describe as “little more than annotated bibliographies” lacking substantial scholarly value.
According to Thomas G. Dietterich, an ArXiv moderator and past president of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, the platform faced unprecedented challenges in maintaining its quality standards. He shared on social media platform X (formerly Twitter): “We were driven to this decision by a big increase in LLM-assisted survey papers. We don’t have the moderator resources to examine these submissions and identify the good surveys from the bad ones.”
The Impact of AI on Academic Publishing
Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT have transformed the research landscape, enabling rapid production of text-based materials. Studies have shown that nearly a quarter of all computer science abstracts by late 2024 had evidence of AI assistance. While AI tools can be helpful for streamlining content creation, they have also led to ethical concerns and quality degradation.
The challenge extends beyond ArXiv. Significant conferences, such as CVPR (Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition), have begun implementing desk-rejection policies targeting papers submitted by reviewers flagged for misconduct. Similarly, industry studies indicate that many AI-generated papers can evade detection by current AI-detection tools. In fact, researchers often fail to identify at least one-third of AI-generated abstracts, further complicating the issue.
Mixed Reactions from the Academic Community
The broader research community has expressed divided opinions on ArXiv’s announcement. Critics argue that the policy introduces barriers for early-career researchers, particularly those without access to high-powered computational resources. Others have suggested alternative solutions, such as creating an unmoderated section for AI-generated content, allowing greater transparency while maintaining quality standards. As Stephen Casper, an AI safety researcher, stated, “Review papers are disproportionately written by young researchers without the institutional support that enables traditional peer review.”
Despite these criticisms, many experts view ArXiv’s new policy as a necessary step to safeguard the repository’s reputation as a credible academic platform. In addition to requiring proof of peer review, the platform has clarified that the change applies solely to the Computer Science category, though other sections may adopt similar policies if similar issues arise.
Looking Ahead
The growing influence of AI on academic and professional writing is undeniable, and platforms like ArXiv are leading efforts to strike a balance between innovation and ethical standards. To support researchers navigating this shift, solutions such as Grammarly’s AI Writing Assistant (Grammarly) or paraphrasing tools like QuillBot can assist in polishing submissions while adhering to integrity guidelines.
As academia grapples with the implications of generative AI, the press for more robust detection tools and ethical publishing practices continues. ArXiv’s bold step may be the beginning of broader conversations on how to integrate AI responsibly in research. Stay tuned as other sections of the repository, alongside major conferences and publishers, decide whether to mirror their approach.
