arXiv, a popular science website, stopped accepting new computer science review and position papers unless they are already accepted by a journal or conference. This change happened because too many people started using AI tools to write summaries that didn't add real ideas. Editors want to keep the site full of new, trustworthy research, not just lists made by computers. Now, only research with expert approval gets through these tighter rules, so readers can trust what they find.

arXiv Bans AI-Assisted Position, Review Papers Due to LLM Flood

arXiv Restricts Computer Science Position/Review Papers Due to LLM Flood after moderators recorded a surge of AI-assisted manuscripts throughout 2024. New rules block fresh uploads of review or position papers unless authors show journal or conference acceptance.

Editors say the policy protects readers from low-value texts that resemble annotated bibliographies more than scholarship. The nut graf: arXiv wants quick dissemination yet insists the CS channel remain a home for original, vetted research as generative AI tools expand.

Why the barricade appeared

Between January 2024 and September 2025, submissions tagged "survey" in CS jumped 240 percent. According to the official arXiv blog update, many newcomers used large language models to stitch together summaries without critical insight. Moderators reported review papers that cited dozens of works while offering few new ideas, slowing manual triage.

A separate 2025 study on citation trends warns that wider use of preprints in policy discussions can amplify mistakes when vetting lags. This backdrop pushed arXiv to require proof of prior peer review. Authors must upload acceptance letters and reviewer comments or face desk rejection.

Numbers behind the decision

A quick snapshot illustrates the scale:

• 73 percent of abstracts in AI journals showed AI fingerprints in 2025, up from 28 percent two years earlier.

Moderators argue that similar ratios likely reached arXiv, stretching volunteer capacity. Instead of recruiting more screeners, the service tightened the funnel for articles that traditionally carry higher interpretive risk.

Community reactions and workarounds

Many senior scholars welcome the filter, claiming it restores signal among daily CS listings. Early career researchers worry the move diminishes visibility for rigorous but still-evolving syntheses. Conference organizers have started to advertise fast-track review options so authors can secure the needed acceptance letter before posting.

Tool builders are also racing to assist. Detection suites combining statistical log-probability checks with stylistic fingerprints now achieve area-under-curve scores above 0.90, yet false positives remain. arXiv prefers human validation through external peer review rather than rely on imperfect software.

What stays unchanged

The archive continues to accept unreviewed research articles, workshop versions, and code supplements. Only the two document types most susceptible to templated AI writing fall under the 2025 restriction. Moderators indicate they will revisit the policy yearly, guided by submission metrics and detection accuracy improvements.

For now, researchers planning a grand survey on transformers or a provocative stance on AI ethics should budget time for journal or conference vetting first. Readers, meanwhile, gain a leaner feed where every survey has cleared at least one expert gauntlet.

arXiv Restricts Computer Science Position/Review Papers Due to LLM Flood after moderators recorded a surge of AI-assisted manuscripts throughout 2024. New rules block fresh uploads of review or position papers unless authors show journal or conference acceptance.

Editors say the policy protects readers from low-value texts that resemble annotated bibliographies more than scholarship. The nut graf: arXiv wants quick dissemination yet insists the CS channel remain a home for original, vetted research as generative AI tools expand.

Why the barricade appeared

Between January 2024 and September 2025, submissions tagged "survey" in CS jumped 240 percent. According to the official arXiv blog update, many newcomers used large language models to stitch together summaries without critical insight. Moderators reported review papers that cited dozens of works while offering few new ideas, slowing manual triage.

A separate 2025 study on citation trends warns that wider use of preprints in policy discussions can amplify mistakes when vetting lags. This backdrop pushed arXiv to require proof of prior peer review. Authors must upload acceptance letters and reviewer comments or face desk rejection.

Numbers behind the decision

A quick snapshot illustrates the scale:

• 73 percent of abstracts in AI journals showed AI fingerprints in 2025, up from 28 percent two years earlier.

Moderators argue that similar ratios likely reached arXiv, stretching volunteer capacity. Instead of recruiting more screeners, the service tightened the funnel for articles that traditionally carry higher interpretive risk.

Community reactions and workarounds

Many senior scholars welcome the filter, claiming it restores signal among daily CS listings. Early career researchers worry the move diminishes visibility for rigorous but still-evolving syntheses. Conference organizers have started to advertise fast-track review options so authors can secure the needed acceptance letter before posting.

Tool builders are also racing to assist. Detection suites combining statistical log-probability checks with stylistic fingerprints now achieve area-under-curve scores above 0.90, yet false positives remain. arXiv prefers human validation through external peer review rather than rely on imperfect software.

What stays unchanged

The archive continues to accept unreviewed research articles, workshop versions, and code supplements. Only the two document types most susceptible to templated AI writing fall under the 2025 restriction. Moderators indicate they will revisit the policy yearly, guided by submission metrics and detection accuracy improvements.

For now, researchers planning a grand survey on transformers or a provocative stance on AI ethics should budget time for journal or conference vetting first. Readers, meanwhile, gain a leaner feed where every survey has cleared at least one expert gauntlet.