arXiv Cracks Down on Unchecked AI Use: One‑Year Ban and Joint Liability for All Authors

Thomas G. Dietterich, chief moderator of the Machine Learning section of arXiv’s CoRR, announced a new rule stating that signing a paper means each author assumes complete responsibility for every part of the manuscript, regardless of how the content was generated.

The rule specifies that if a generative‑AI tool produces improper statements, plagiarism, bias, factual errors, false citations, or misleading material that appears in a paper, the authors are fully liable for those outputs.

Concrete evidence of unchecked LLM use includes fabricated references and meta‑annotations generated by the model, such as “this is a 200‑word abstract, do you need any changes?” or “the data in this table are illustrative, please insert actual experimental results.”

Violations result in a one‑year ban from submitting to arXiv; after the ban, any new submission must first be accepted by a reputable peer‑review venue.

Community feedback is mixed: many supporters applaud the strict enforcement, while critics warn that the policy could be applied selectively based on institutional privilege or personal reputation, potentially silencing less‑connected researchers.

Dietterich acknowledged possible bias in the detection workflow, noting that arXiv will employ a standard LLM‑detection algorithm and that reviewers themselves may carry bias, and he expressed willingness to collaborate with researchers to study these biases and the policy’s effectiveness.

Some observers question the long‑term viability of the rule as AI advances, suggesting that a simple “AI‑generated” label might suffice instead of a year‑long ban.

Concerns were raised about joint liability, such as whether an author who was added without consent would also be banned, and a proposal was offered: an author’s name should appear only after they have accepted an invitation and had the opportunity to review the manuscript.

ICLR 2026 will punish authors who do not disclose AI misuse and may reject papers from reviewers who misuse AI.

ICML 2026 bans listing LLMs as authors and forbids hidden prompt injection.

CVPR 2025 prohibits any use of LLMs to write or translate reviews; reviewers found to have submitted AI‑generated reviews may have their own papers rejected.

EMNLP 2025 requires accepted papers to include a “Responsible NLP Checklist.”

These developments signal that the academic community is moving from debate to concrete red lines and enforceable penalties regarding generative AI in scholarly publishing.