TLDR: ArXiv, the prominent preprint repository, has updated its policy for the Computer Science category, now requiring prior peer review for all submitted review articles and position papers. This change, effective October 31, 2025, is a direct response to a “flood” of low-quality, AI-generated survey papers that have overwhelmed its volunteer moderators. The platform, which historically received a small number of high-quality reviews, now sees hundreds of these AI-assisted submissions monthly. While some researchers express concern that the new rule might disadvantage early-career authors, others deem it essential to manage the surge of AI-generated content.
Cornell University’s ArXiv, a globally recognized preprint repository, has announced a significant policy change for its Computer Science category, effective October 31, 2025. The platform will now only accept review articles and position papers that have already undergone peer review at a journal or conference. This move comes as a direct consequence of a “flood” of AI-generated survey papers that have inundated the repository, straining its volunteer moderation system.
According to an official statement on the ArXiv site, “In the past few years, arXiv has been flooded with papers. Generative AI/large language models have added to this flood by making papers—especially papers not introducing new research results—fast and easy to write.” Thomas G. Dietterich, an ArXiv moderator and former president of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, further elaborated on X (formerly Twitter), stating, “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.”
Historically, ArXiv’s volunteer moderators have focused on scholarly value and topical relevance, not formal peer review. While exceptions were occasionally made for review articles from established researchers, this discretionary system proved unsustainable under the weight of AI-generated content. The repository, which once received a “small trickle of high-quality reviews,” now faces “hundreds of these submissions monthly.” These AI-generated papers are often described by moderators as “little more than annotated bibliographies.”
The proliferation of AI-generated content in academic publishing is a growing concern. Research published in Nature Human Behaviour indicated that nearly a quarter of all computer science abstracts showed evidence of large language model modification by September 2024. Another study in Science Advances highlighted a significant increase in AI use in research papers published in 2024 following the launch of ChatGPT. Furthermore, the American Association for Cancer Research reported that less than 25% of authors disclosed AI use, despite mandatory disclosure policies.
The academic community’s reaction to ArXiv’s new policy has been mixed. AI safety researcher Stephen Casper voiced concerns that the rule could disproportionately affect early-career researchers and those focusing on ethics and governance. He noted, “Review/position papers are disproportionately written by young people, people without access to lots of compute, and people who are not at institutions that have lots of publishing experience.” Conversely, many others support the policy, viewing it as a necessary measure to combat “AI spam.” Some critics have also suggested that ArXiv should consider an unmoderated section or explore AI tools for detecting AI-generated papers, though the reliability of such detection tools, with their high false-positive rates, remains a challenge.
Also Read:
- AI-Generated Content Surpasses Human-Authored Articles Online, But Visibility Remains Low
- New Research Reveals AI Models Generate Code with Significant Security Vulnerabilities
The new requirement mandates authors to provide documentation of successful peer review, including journal references and Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs). Workshop reviews will not meet this standard. While the policy currently applies only to the Computer Science category, ArXiv has indicated that other sections might adopt similar measures if they experience comparable surges in AI-generated submissions. This development underscores a broader reckoning within academic publishing as institutions grapple with the implications of generative AI on research integrity and publication standards.
