However, now magazines are fighting back. ArXiv, one of the largest open-access repositories of preprint academic research, is issuing a one-year ban on all authors who submit “obviously AI-generated work.” According to 404media. Furthermore, if the offending author wants to get back into ArXiv’s good graces, they must first submit it to a “reputable peer-review site”, according to Thomas Dieterich, chair of the publication’s computer science division.
Fierce fight over AI in schools
He recently moved to x To not only clarify the new rules but also put the onus on authors to use LLMs responsibly: “If generative AI tools generate inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, inaccuracies, misreferences, or misleading content, and that output is included in scientific work, it is the responsibility of the author. We have recently clarified our penalties for this. If a submission includes irrefutable evidence that the authors did not check the results of LLM generation If so, it means that we cannot trust anything printed in the newspaper.”
Mashable Trend Report
Faulty, misleading references, plagiarism and invented citations are not the only issues with AI; However, there are others too. In November 2025, ArXiv was forced to Shut down its entire computer science review section Due to the sheer volume of AI-generated submissions, most of which did not even present new research results, According to a press statement.
A funny, counter-intuitive consequence of AI-enabled hyperefficiency is valuation disruption. If, in any given month, 100 academic papers are submitted for review, it is not too difficult to find and publish the best work, but if there are a thousand submissions, even the best funded journals cannot keep up.
It is expected that as the power of AI increases and the cost of its use decreases, the reaction will become even more fierce.
Subject
artificial intelligence
<a href