arXiv caps submissions at two per month as AI-driven preprint flood hits 40,363 in September

Submissions went from 9,869 in Sept 2016 to 40,363 this September. So are we in the singularity already? Research output is rising exponentially. /s

Nice writeup and the policy is a step in the right direction. I think simple rate limits like this will be a big improvement. Longer term I suspect we end up with identity management plus an aggressive filter and shared blacklists, classifying slop submitters and applying incremental rate limits on top of the general one.

If the queue grows past volunteer capacity then volunteer time is the scarce resource. In my experience, aggressive prioritization is more likely than out-and-out blocklisting. Deprioritize people who post rejected papers regularly and they get stuck naturally, no ban required. They still get a fair shake, when there is time.

This will just push high SNR posters to other platforms. arXiv is rate limiting itself out of relevance.

It doesn't seem humanly possible to produce more than 2 high SNR papers a month. If you have a batch of related papers, spread the submissions over several months, which you should be doing anyway because comments on one paper affect the others.

It's pushing slop elsewhere, that's the point.

I imagine they could augment it by giving higher rates to some people based on h-index.

Does anyone have a concrete example of a high SNR researcher who consistently submits more than two quality papers a month, month after month?

As an academic who submits regularly, this is eminently sensible. I like that it's per-submitter and not per-author, so big labs with large collaborations shouldn't be terribly put out since more authors means more submission budget. I hope conferences adopt something similar, the absolute limits on co-authorship cause the most grumbles.

That doesn't really hold, since large collaborations submit under a single email address. Look at CMS papers on arXiv.

arXiv papers aren't supposed to signify anything. The only reason people get career benefit is that Google Scholar indexes them and counts them toward h-index, and metric-based career optimization is broken anyway. The real fix is to stop hiring and promoting on arXiv paper counts. Moderation is a misunderstanding of arXiv's role; if hosting is too expensive, an alternative aggregator with just metadata and a PDF hash could arise.

Agreed it shouldn't be necessary, but arXiv can't change the bad incentive structure the broader hiring ecosystem set up.

You're basically advocating for arXiv to become viXra. Go look at vixra.org/all/2610: the second paper is about reconsidering the Higgs boson via Vedic vortex structure, then one arguing Gauss's flux theorem doesn't hold in time-varying electric fields, then one on the boundary problem in the origins of matter, life, and consciousness. arXiv won't keep its funding with that in it.

arXiv papers get cited and assumed suitable for peer review, so some standards need to be maintained. It's not a free for all.

For mathematics, arXiv is the principal forum for quality research. Journals are purely archival and bureaucratic, refereeing adds almost no value.

There may be great researchers working on several papers in a month, but even with this rule they can split them and submit anyway, so it's very reasonable. AI slop is everywhere and this fast, forceful action is effective at stopping the wave.

I keep looking for the right label for this kind of AI risk. Something that was a common good, that worked at a human scale, is now unviable because automation pushed it past what it can handle and still be useful.

Tragedy of the commons.

Eternal September.

Ginsparg and coauthors predict a future where we increasingly rely on status markers like author pedigree and institutional affiliation as quality signals, ironically counteracting the democratizing effect of LLMs on scientific production (arxiv.org/abs/2601.13187). That seems very plausible under a preprint flood, because there's only so much time in a day.

Publish everything on Zenodo for the timestamp and priority, then slowly integrate into arXiv.

In my experience arXiv has become too slow. My previous paper took weeks to be approved and I eventually posted it on hal.science instead, where it went up in a day. Another one of mine has been on hold for 18 days and counting. Great service, but clearly a scalability problem.

Have you contributed volunteer moderator time? That's the resource being strained by the submission volume.

Thanks, I've been looking for alternatives.

There's also a marked increase in dense, AI-written papers. arXiv should just ban these submitters.