For thirty years the open-access repository arXiv ran on a simple faith: that a scientist with something to say should be allowed to say it. Now the faith has met the machine. The repository has announced it will rate limit submissions, 404 Media reports, because it has been inundated with papers written by artificial intelligence. A researcher may now send in no more than two pieces per calendar month, and may hold no more than three active submissions at any given time.

In a blog post about the change, arXiv said AI had made it too easy to spam the publisher’s inbox, and that its volunteer moderation team is overwhelmed. The gate, in other words, is still guarded — but the guards are tired, and the crowd at the gate no longer sleeps, eats or doubts itself.

The Volunteers at the Gate

The heart of arXiv’s process for detecting and rejecting low-quality papers is our many volunteer moderators

So said Thomas Dietterich, an Oregon State University professor emeritus and chair of arXiv’s editorial advisory council, in a statement. “We are so grateful that they donate their time and expertise every day,” he said. “However, a relatively small proportion of authors are submitting a large number of low-quality papers and consuming a disproportionate fraction of the moderators’ time. This is unfair to authors who continue to submit quality papers — their papers can be delayed for days or weeks as a result.”

The arithmetic tells the story of a slow tide that has become a flood. According to arXiv, it received 9,869 submissions in September 2016, 20,569 in September 2024, and 40,363 in September 2026. Submissions have doubled in the last two years — and sextupled in the computer science category, the very field that built the tools now besieging it.

Thin Papers, Salami Papers

AI is driving the surge in multiple ways, 404 Media notes. Researchers use large language models to parse massive data sets, write code and design portions of experiments; some use the models to write the papers themselves. arXiv’s own rules do not forbid this outright. “arXiv policy permits authors to employ AI as a tool in support of their research as long as it is disclosed and the research meets arXiv’s standards of scholarly interest and advances the field of research,” the repository said. “However, many of the submissions that arXiv is now receiving do not satisfy these requirements.”

What arrives instead has acquired a taxonomy of its own. There are what arXiv calls “thin papers of narrow scope,” and salami papers — multiple articles sliced from a single study, each cut thinner than the last. “There is also a marked increase in dense, AI-written papers,” the repository said. “AI tools are making it easy for authors to flood arXiv and other repositories with these low-value papers.”

Rate limiting itself is not new at arXiv; it was previously left to each individual moderator’s discretion. The formal policy, the publisher said, “strives to fairly distribute the incredibly valuable work of our volunteer moderators who check that submissions meet these standards.”

A Long Siege

The new cap is only the latest fortification in what has become a long battle with machine-written slop. A little less than a year ago, the archive stopped accepting review articles and position papers in the computer science category, citing low-effort, LLM-written articles. In January it began requiring new authors to win an endorsement from an existing author; before that, an academic email address had been qualification enough. In May it went further still, declaring that researchers caught submitting AI slop would be banished from the site for a year.

There is an old irony here, and the reporting permits it to be named: the laboratory has been flooded by its own invention. A system built to let knowledge move freely now survives by deciding, each month, how little of it can be allowed through the door — and the deciding is done by unpaid volunteers, holding back an ocean that costs nothing to pour.