What do researchers think about arXiv's announcement that it will crack down on poorly generated AI-generated papers?

The unpeer-reviewed paper repository arXiv has indicated its intention to impose severe penalties on researchers who submit shoddy papers using AI. Professor Vitmir Kovanovic, an education scholar at the University of Adelaide, has offered his opinion on this move by arXiv.

A key science publishing platform is cracking down on AI slop
https://theconversation.com/a-key-science-publishing-platform-is-cracking-down-on-ai-slop-283136

Thomas G. Dietrich, head of the Computer Science section at arXiv, announced a new policy on X (formerly Twitter) stating that 'authors are responsible for errors caused by generative AI tools.' He also announced a rule that if a paper is submitted containing clear errors caused by generative AI, the authors will be jointly banned from submitting to arXiv for one year.

arXiv, a repository of unpeer-reviewed papers, announces a policy of banning submissions for one year if a paper contains errors due to LLM (Licensed Liberal Arts) or fictitious citations - GIGAZINE

According to research published by AI company Graphite, half of the articles published online from the first quarter of 2025 (January-March) onward were written by AI.

The number of articles and academic papers written by AI is on the rise. According to research published in the journal 'Organization Science' in April 2026, since the release of ChatGPT in 2022, 'the number of submitted papers has increased dramatically, while the quality has declined.' The research team concluded that 'the current state of AI tools is further exacerbated by the existing incentive of 'you can't survive unless you publish,' pushing research towards increasing quantity rather than improving quality.'

The means of preventing low quality in academic publications relies on the 'peer review system,' in which other experts in the field read research papers and scrutinize the underlying research before publication. However, busy researchers often have little time or motivation to perform unpaid peer review work, and it can be said that the peer review system already had problems even before the advent of AI.

Dietrich stated that 'if a submitted paper contains clear evidence that the authors did not verify the results generated by LLM, then the contents of that paper are completely unreliable,' not that he has uniformly banned the use of AI. Professor Kovanovic also stated that 'most researchers would agree that the text generated by AI itself is not the problem. The problem is that AI can easily generate low-quality text.'

However, Professor Kovanovic points out that 'a penalty of banning all authors whose names are listed in a paper from publishing for one year may not be in line with current research practices.'

Professor Kovanovic acknowledges that traditional research is often conducted by individuals or groups of two or three people, and in such cases, it is reasonable to expect each author to be responsible for the whole. However, modern research is more collaborative than ever before, with a minimum of four or five authors on a single paper, and in some cases, hundreds of people working together on a research project. Therefore, Professor Kovanovic argues that 'if one of dozens or hundreds of authors includes a reference that appears to have been generated by AI in their section, it seems too harsh to ban all the other authors from publishing the paper as well.'

Furthermore, there are no equivalent sanctions for publishing other problematic materials. Professor Kovanovic pointed out that there are still no measures in place to prohibit the dissemination of radical or unreliable theories, or the use of low-quality evidence or illogical arguments.

Professor Kovanovic stated, 'arXiv's choice this time seems extreme. If the goal is to improve peer review and quality assurance, the AI system itself should be able to fulfill that role.' The AI system receives a list of references and verifies whether all of them are actual papers available on the internet, and any references deemed questionable can then be reviewed by humans.

Professor Kovanovic argued, 'AI could also be useful for quickly checking the validity of statistical analyses of papers. Rather than imposing harsh sanctions on relatively minor AI-related violations, this may be the path we should take in the future.'