The change comes as arXiv and others struggle to manage an influx of AI-generated materials masquerading as rigorous science.
Researchers who use hallucinated references to face arXiv ban
The preprint server is the latest to impose stiff penalties on authors who contribute to AI ‘slop’ — but not everyone is convinced it’s the right approach.
arXiv Is Rate Limiting Submissions Because It Can’t Keep up With AI Slop
The academic publisher said submissions have doubled in the past two years and moderators are having a hard time keeping up.
Fair Moderation, Equitable Access, and AI: arXiv’s Updated Rate Limit Policy
arXiv, and the scientific community at large, are facing a watershed moment. Scholarly publishing is currently changing at a rapid pace, and we are seeing a…
arXiv Changes Rules After Getting Spammed With AI-Generated 'Research' Papers
Cornell University’s arXiv will no longer accept Computer Science reviews and position papers.
Preprint site arXiv is banning computer-science reviews: here’s why
Nature - The repository is taking steps to tackle a surge in low quality, AI-generated content.
The AI Slop Backlash Is Actually Having an Impact
Platforms are finally recognizing that people don’t want to consume AI slop. A growing number of sites and apps now have tools and policies to flag, label, and ban AI-generated content.
No. 028: arXiv rate limit, AI paper mills, Google FluSight - The Hallway Track
The Hallway Track No. 028 - How AI is affecting the practice of science
How AI slop is causing a crisis in computer science
Preprint repositories and conference organizers are having to counter a tide of ‘AI slop’ submissions.
It's open season for refusing AI
There's been a wave of successful efforts to ban, reject and shut down AI.
AI Slopageddon and the OSS Maintainers
AI slop is ripping up the social contract between maintainers and contributors essential to open source development. Practitioners have been repeatedly assured that AI would supercharge their communities, but so far that hasn’t been the case. Just look at what happened last month. Mitchell Hashimoto’s Ghostty implemented a zero-tolerance policy where submitting bad AI-generated code
elvis on Twitter / X
arXiv Papers → LLM ArtifactsThis is how I keep up with AI research now.It's like having access to the most personalized arXiv feed.Automations run everyday to curate papers based a set of rules and insights.Curated papers are indexed and power the artifacts.Agent… pic.twitter.com/5UCxF8ZsT0— elvis (@omarsar0) May 6, 2026
No. 001: arXiv goes independent, AI Scientist v2, Claude Scholar - The Hallway Track
The Hallway Track No. 001 - How AI is affecting the practice of science
The fight over downloadable AI is not really about a ban - Sensemaker
Companies want access, Anthropic wants testing, and Washington and Beijing are arguing over alleged copying.
Can AI slop help us save the internet?
Disrupting the status quo and opening space for new visions
Project Rachel: Can an AI Become a Scholarly Author?
This paper documents Project Rachel, an action research study that created and tracked a complete AI academic identity named Rachel So. Through careful publication of AI-generated research papers, we investigate how the scholarly ecosystem responds to AI authorship. Rachel So published 10+ papers between March and October 2025, was cited, and received a peer review invitation. We discuss the implications of AI authorship on publishers, researchers, and the scientific system at large. This work contributes empirical action research data to the necessary debate about the future of scholarly communication with super human, hyper capable AI systems.
