arXiv Caps Submissions: Two Papers a Month Against the AI Flood

For many disciplines, arXiv is the most important place where new research first appears, long before a journal prints it. Since October 1, each person may submit only two papers there per calendar month. The reason is a flood of submissions that doubled within two years and is overwhelming the volunteer moderators. The operators explicitly name AI tools as a driver. For researchers, this is a noticeable change; for everyone else, it is a sign of how much pressure AI is putting on the scientific enterprise.

Key takeaways

• Since October 1, 2026, arXiv has limited each person to two submissions per calendar month, across all subject areas.
• The cap of three simultaneously active submissions, in place since 2024, remains. Rejected papers count toward the limit; withdrawn ones do not.
• In September 2026, arXiv received 40,363 submissions, twice as many as two years earlier. In the category for AI research, the number has grown more than sixfold.
• arXiv allows AI as a research tool if its use is disclosed. In the operators’ view, however, many of the new papers do not meet its standards.
• The rule is meant as a stopgap until better moderation tools are available.

What changes for submitters

arXiv published the new rule on its blog on October 1, and it took effect the same day. Anyone uploading a paper may now do so at most twice per calendar month and may have no more than three submissions in process at once. The limit applies only to the person who actually submits a paper. Co-authors are not counted, so arXiv advises teams to agree on who uploads which paper.

The details matter. What counts is submissions, not published papers. A rejected paper therefore uses up a slot as well, because it has already taken moderators’ time. Anyone who withdraws a paper before it is announced gets the slot back. Papers still on hold from the previous month do not count against the new monthly limit, but they do count toward the cap of three simultaneous submissions. The blog post does not say how revisions of already published papers are treated or whether there are exceptions. For groups that upload many papers at once ahead of conference deadlines, this means planning early and spreading submissions across several people.

The numbers behind the emergency brake

The statistics arXiv presents explain the urgency. In September 2016, it received 9,869 submissions; in September 2024, 20,569; and in September 2026, 40,363, a new monthly record. In that month alone, staff and moderators fielded almost 9,000 support tickets. While most categories roughly doubled over the past two years, cs.AI, the artificial intelligence section, grew more than sixfold.

Thomas Dietterich, a professor emeritus of computer science at Oregon State University and chair of arXiv’s Editorial Advisory Council, describes the problem as one of distribution: a relatively small share of authors submit a large number of low-quality papers and take up a disproportionate share of moderation time. The result, he says, is delays of days or weeks for everyone else. Moderators report three patterns: thin papers with a very narrow focus, so-called salami papers that artificially split one study into several publications, and dense, AI-written texts with little scholarly value.

Not an AI ban, but a quality filter

arXiv stresses that AI is explicitly allowed as a tool, as long as authors disclose its use and the work meets its standards: it must be original, relevant and of scholarly interest. The monthly cap is the latest in a series of steps. In late 2025, the computer science section stopped accepting review articles and position papers that had not first been peer-reviewed. Since January 2026, an academic email address alone is no longer enough: first-time submitters to a subject area also need a prior arXiv paper in that area or a personal endorsement from an established author. In May, Dietterich announced a one-year ban for authors whose papers demonstrably contain unchecked AI output, such as fabricated references or leftover chatbot comments. After that, those authors’ papers must first be accepted by a peer-reviewed venue before they can appear on arXiv again. Observers welcomed the move but, according to Times Higher Education, doubted that it could be enforced at scale.

The flood is tied to what AI can now do. Language models write code, analyze data and draft entire manuscripts in hours instead of weeks. OpenAI recently released 722 AI-generated math manuscripts in one go, a scale that would have been unthinkable two years ago. That volume does not mean quality was shown today by an Epoch AI test in which AI agents inflated their own research results. The bottleneck is shifting from writing to reviewing, and at arXiv, that work is done by volunteers.

Who pays the bill

The restriction hits a platform in transition. Since this summer, arXiv has been moving from Cornell University to an independent nonprofit organization. In late September, Simons Foundation International, XTX Markets and the Siegel Family Endowment pledged a combined $17.2 million over three to five years. Part of the money is explicitly earmarked for platform development, including the management of AI-generated content. Until those tools are in place, the cap is meant to limit the load. arXiv plans to monitor the effect and adjust the rule. Dietterich hopes to relax it later or lift it entirely.

Outlook: when writing gets cheap, reviewing gets expensive

For the vast majority of researchers, little changes; two submissions a month is a lot for one person. Those mainly affected are large groups with a single person who uploads everything, and those who produce publications in series. The real lesson extends beyond arXiv: when AI makes writing almost free, human attention becomes the scarcest resource in science. A rigid volume cap is a blunt tool for that. But it protects what makes arXiv valuable, namely that a new paper appears there quickly and reliably, until better filters can take over the job of separating contributions from filler.