arXiv Shifts Policy: Peer-Reviewed Papers Only for Computer Science Submissions

arXiv, the oldest and best-known preprint repository, has announced that it will no longer accept review or position papers in computer science unless they have already been peer-reviewed. The website will make exceptions only for papers that have been previously accepted by a peer-reviewed venue, such as a journal or conference. This change in policy comes after a surge in low-quality papers, including many that appear to be written using generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools. According to a blog post announcing the move on October 31, arXiv management stated that these types of articles were never officially on the platform's list of accepted content types, but had previously been allowed at moderator discretion. The decision was made necessary by the increasing number of low-quality submissions, which have put a strain on the platform's resources. Richard Sever, chief science and strategy officer of the non-profit organisation openRxiv in New York City, which runs the biomedical-sciences preprint servers bioRxiv and medRxiv, believes that this move is a wise one. "I think this is a wise move by arXiv," he said. "Both bioRxiv and medRxiv have had a no narrative reviews policy from the outset, and we've seen the benefits of this approach in terms of maintaining the quality of our submissions." Sever noted that the biomedical sciences preprint servers have been able to maintain a high level of quality by excluding narrative reviews, and that arXiv's decision to do the same in computer science is a step in the right direction. The surge in low-quality papers on arXiv has been attributed to the increasing use of generative AI tools, which can produce high-quality-looking papers in a matter of minutes. This has led to a rise in rejection rates, as reviewers struggle to distinguish between genuine submissions and those generated by AI. arXiv's decision to require peer-reviewed submissions in computer science is an attempt to address this issue and maintain the quality of the platform. arXiv's move is also seen as a response to the growing concern about the use of AI in academic publishing. As AI-generated papers become more sophisticated, it is becoming increasingly difficult for reviewers to identify them. By requiring peer-reviewed submissions, arXiv is attempting to ensure that all papers on the platform meet a certain level of quality and authenticity. The current status of arXiv's policy change is that it will be implemented immediately, with a focus on enforcing the new guidelines in the computer science section of the platform. arXiv management has stated that they will continue to monitor the situation and make adjustments as necessary to maintain the quality of the platform. As the academic community continues to grapple with the implications of AI-generated papers, arXiv's decision to require peer-reviewed submissions in computer science is seen as a significant step forward in maintaining the integrity of academic publishing.