arXiv moderator says one-year submission ban will apply when authors fail to check AI content

Thomas Dietterich, an arXiv moderator, posted that submissions with incontrovertible evidence authors did not check LLM-generated output will trigger a one-year submission ban and extra conditions on future postings;

Thomas Dietterich, an emeritus Oregon State University professor who sits on arXiv’s editorial advisory council and moderation team, used a social media thread to outline clarified penalties for AI-generated content on the preprint server. He said that when there is incontrovertible evidence authors failed to check large language model (LLM) output, the moderation response will include a one-year ban on new submissions — a change that directly affects researchers who rely on rapid preprint posting for early feedback and visibility.

Dietterich referenced arXiv’s moderation standards, which require submissions to conform to appropriate scholarly communication norms — "appropriate and carefully prepared sections, figures, tables, references, etc." — and to demonstrate "general scrupulousness and care of preparation." He emphasized that all listed authors are held fully responsible for a manuscript’s content, explicitly including AI-produced language as well as plagiarized passages, biased material, errors, incorrect references, or otherwise misleading content.

The moderation clarification was announced against a backdrop of recurring problems with AI output in scientific manuscripts: reporting has found fake or fabricated citations, verbatim prompt responses left unedited, and nonsensical diagrams that have made it past editors and peer reviewers. By focusing on the preprint stage — a standard part of dissemination and early feedback in fields such as astrophysics and physics — the policy aims to address those failures before work is circulated broadly.

Dietterich described additional conditions tied to the one-year embargo: authors subject to the penalty may only repost work to arXiv after the manuscript has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal. That requirement introduces a material delay to the normal preprint feedback loop and raises the stakes for errors traced to unvetted LLM output, converting what was often a quick corrective step into a longer, more consequential sanction.

For research groups and tool builders, the clarification increases operational burden: every author listed must verify AI-assisted text, figures, citations and references; teams will likely need explicit review checklists and version controls for any generative AI use; and authoring workflows that treated preprints as low-friction outputs will need adjustment. The moderation framework does include an appeal process, but the prospect of a year-long posting ban makes thorough pre-submission validation far more urgent. contacted arXiv leadership for confirmation of the moderator’s account but had not received a reply at the time of reporting.