ArXiv, the widely-used preprint server for academic research, announced new enforcement measures against researchers who submit papers containing unvetted AI-generated content. Thomas Dietterich, who chairs ArXiv's computer science section, outlined the policy on X, stating that authors who submit work with clear evidence they didn't verify AI outputs will face consequences. The platform's code of conduct requires that anyone signing their name to a paper takes full responsibility for all its contents, regardless of how the material was generated. The penalty for violations includes a one-year suspension from the platform. After the ban period ends, affected researchers can only resubmit papers that have already been accepted by "a reputable peer-reviewed venue," adding an extra layer of oversight before their work can appear on ArXiv again. Authors do retain the right to appeal ban decisions. According to Dietterich, "incontrovertible evidence" of unchecked AI generation includes clearly fabricated references—known as hallucinated citations—and meta-comments that AI systems leave behind in text. He provided examples, such as an AI writing "here is a 200 word summary; would you like me to make any changes?" or instructing authors to "fill it in with the real numbers from your experiments" after generating placeholder data in a table. Dietterich told 404Media that this type of evidence makes it impossible to trust anything else in the paper. The policy was reported by Jay Peters for The Verge on May 15, 2026.