ArXiv Caps Submissions at Two Per Month as AI-Driven Paper Flood Grows

arXiv Limits Authors to Two Submissions Per Month

Starting October 1, 2026, the preprint platform arXiv will allow only two submissions per person per calendar month. According to arXiv, the limit applies across all categories and only to the person who submits the paper, while co-authors are not affected. Rejected papers still count toward the limit because they consume moderation time, but authors who delete a paper before publication get that slot back. The existing cap of three active submissions at any given time, in place since 2024, remains unchanged.

AI-Driven Submission Surge Strains Volunteer Moderators

arXiv points to the sharp rise in submissions, partly driven by AI tools, as the reason for the new rule. The platform received 9,869 submissions in September 2016, 20,569 in September 2024, and 40,363 in September 2026, the highest monthly total in its history. The surge generated nearly 9,000 support tickets for staff and moderators. In the cs.AI category alone, submissions grew more than sixfold in two years.

Volunteer moderators report more thin, narrowly focused papers, "salami" papers sliced into tiny pieces, and dense texts written by AI. Thomas G. Dietterich, chair of the arXiv Editorial Advisory Council, calls the volunteer moderators the backbone of quality control, but says a relatively small proportion of authors are submitting a large number of low-quality papers and consuming a disproportionate fraction of moderators' time. He adds that this is unfair to authors who submit quality papers, since their work can be delayed for days or weeks, and that some authors submit dozens of papers. Dietterich also hopes the limit will curb "micro-result" papers that describe, for example, one extra ablation study or a minor tweak to an architecture. arXiv calls the rule a temporary fix until its own moderation tools can scale, and Dietterich says he hopes the cap can be raised or dropped later.

Conferences and arXiv Tighten Oversight

The tightening follows earlier measures. In November 2025, arXiv had already tightened rules for computer science papers, and since then review articles and position papers must go through peer review. In May 2026, Dietterich announced a one-year ban for authors whose papers clearly contain unverified LLM outputs such as hallucinated sources. AI conferences are dealing with the same problem: ICLR 2027 had already received about 50,000 abstracts before its deadline, while ICLR 2026 got around 19,500 valid submissions. Among roughly 5,000 accepted papers at NeurIPS 2025, GPTZero found at least 100 fabricated citations, even though each paper had at least three reviewers.

Independence Funding and AI Research Tools

After 25 years, arXiv is splitting from Cornell University and has been transitioning to an independent nonprofit since July 1, 2026. In late September, the Simons Foundation International, XTX Markets, and the Siegel Family Endowment pledged a total of $17.2 million over three to five years. arXiv plans to put part of the money toward technical upgrades, with a focus on handling AI-generated content. Meanwhile, major AI labs are positioning their models as research tools: in August, Google DeepMind expanded its Co-Scientist into a system designed to plan experiments, control lab equipment, and generate manuscripts; Anthropic is building its own biology lab where Claude is meant to guide robots through experiments; and in September, OpenAI announced an "automated research intern" that handles defined research tasks under human oversight. A study involving Princeton and the UK AI Safety Institute took a different angle, having Claude Opus 4.8 work for six days on research questions from two unpublished NeurIPS papers. The original authors, acting as reviewers, rejected both sets of results.

Sources: The Decoder