arXiv Finally Pulls the Plug: Only Two Papers a Month Thanks to AI Spam

Starting October 1st, arXiv has imposed a strict cap of two submissions per calendar month for every user. This emergency brake applies across the board, and if a moderator rejects your paper, that rejection counts as one of your two monthly attempts, effectively ending the era of 'spray and pray' publishing.

The repository has been buckling under the weight of an explosion in submissions, which doubled from 20,000 in September 2024 to 40,000 in September 2026. This deluge has turned the moderation queue into a 9,000-request-per-month nightmare, fueled largely by researchers using generative models to churn out endless content.

The site has identified the 'salami slicing' tactic, where authors artificially chop one single, thin experiment into five separate papers to pad their CVs. Generative AI is the perfect accomplice here, expanding minimal results into full-length manuscripts by repeating the same tired observations under different headings.

While arXiv doesn't explicitly ban AI, it demands full disclosure, placing the burden of 'not being a fraud' entirely on the authors. The site maintains that it doesn't conduct peer review—just basic compliance checks—which is exactly why the sheer volume of low-quality 'AI-assisted' noise became impossible to filter manually.

Science has become a factory line where the goal is to produce volume rather than knowledge. When the prestige of a publication is tied to quantity, it is only a matter of time before the machines start talking to each other in a feedback loop of academic nothingness.

Source: arXiv