ArXiv will ban authors for a year if they submit papers written entirely by AI.
ArXiv is the free preprint server where researchers post work before peer review - the place where most AI, physics, and math research appears first, often months before journal publication. The new policy, reported by TechCrunch, is the repository's strongest enforcement action yet against careless AI use in scientific submissions.
The policy doesn't ban AI assistance outright. Using AI to fix grammar, restructure prose, or clean up a draft is still allowed. The ban targets full delegation: submitting a paper where a large language model (an AI system trained on massive text datasets to generate human-like writing) did all the substantive intellectual work and the named author contributed nothing meaningful.
What's unclear is detection. Catching AI-only authorship reliably is an unsolved problem. Current AI-detection tools carry well-documented false positive rates, which means enforcement will probably rely on patterns that are obviously machine-generated rather than statistical classifiers. Wrongly banning a legitimate researcher over a false positive would be damaging, and ArXiv presumably knows this.
The broader context: every major scientific publisher has tightened AI disclosure requirements since 2024. Nature, Elsevier, and IEEE all updated policies requiring disclosure when AI contributes to a paper. ArXiv is now adding punishment to go alongside the rules - a meaningful step beyond requiring disclosure. Whether that actually changes behavior or just moves the problem underground depends on how consistently it gets enforced.