AI Research Spam on arXiv: Platform to Censor AI-Generated Preprints

arXiv Tightens Reins on AI-Generated Research Submissions

The esteemed preprint server arXiv, a crucial staging ground for scientific discourse before formal peer review, is enacting stricter measures to combat a deluge of low-quality, AI-generated content. This move specifically targets review articles and analytical reports within the computer science domain, which have become overwhelmingly saturated with machine-crafted submissions. The majority of these AI-produced works largely consist of annotated bibliographies devoid of substantive exploration into pressing research questions, raising concerns about the integrity and future of scientific communication.

The Unwelcome Influx of AI-Generated Scholarship

For years, arXiv has served as a vital platform for researchers across physics, mathematics, biology, economics, statistics, and computer science to disseminate their findings. Submissions are typically vetted by domain experts, acting as preliminary moderators. However, the advent of sophisticated generative AI and large language models has dramatically amplified the ease and volume with which articles, particularly those lacking original research outcomes, can be produced. This has led to an unprecedented overflow, a sentiment echoed by arXiv's administration. As a result, a significant gatekeeping mechanism is being introduced: authors submitting review or analytical reports must now furnish documentation of successful prior peer review. Without this crucial evidence, such submissions are highly likely to be summarily rejected, a stark departure from the server's previous, more accommodating approach to these publication types.

A Calculated Move to Preserve Scientific Rigor

The sheer volume of these AI-driven submissions, particularly in computer science, has become overwhelming, with hundreds of review-style articles flooding the platform monthly. This situation has prompted arXiv to consider a complete moratorium on review articles and analytical reports within the computer science category. The aim is to liberate moderators' time and attention, enabling them to focus on more substantial, original research contributions. While this initial focus is on computer science, arXiv is actively monitoring other disciplines and is prepared to implement similar restrictions if the problem escalates elsewhere. Historically, arXiv has selectively hosted review articles only when they offered significant academic merit and were penned by recognized scholars. The current landscape, however, is far removed from those days, with AI-generated content posing a significant challenge to genuine scientific inquiry. The problem is exacerbated by a growing trend of pseudoscientific journals leveraging AI to generate and profit from publications that lack any real scholarly value. Even within the legitimate review process, time constraints and heavy workloads are pushing some human reviewers to increasingly rely on AI tools like ChatGPT, further blurring the lines of authentic academic engagement.