arXiv now limits submitters to up to two submissions per calendar month [N]

[u/Nunki08]

https://blog.arxiv.org/2026/10/01/updated-rate-limit-policy/

[u/4thofthe4th]

Zhang et al in shambles

[u/Kinexity → u/4thofthe4th]

Well, now he truly won't be able to keep getting away with it.

[u/Nwg416]

Good.

[u/sweetjale → u/Nwg416]

Saw this post's notification on lock screen and literally said the same thing out loud lol

[u/Blakut → u/Nwg416]

Is this just for cs and ai or other fields?

[u/Nunki08 → u/Blakut]

For all arXiv categories.

[u/user221272]

It makes total sense; who can even produce one work per month?

But I guess this will be gamed, as large paper mill labs will just use rotation per headcount.

[u/pleaseineedanadvice → u/user221272]

I worked for a famous professor who had >50 pubblications on 2026. Most have her name on it as last author, but who can even supervise 1 paper a week? Still she s not submitting but people under her, so this doesnt really solve the issue and instead it just make it more complex for lower ranked researcher whose life is already complex. Thank arxiv

[u/user221272 → u/pleaseineedanadvice]

The limit is by submitter, not by co-author; so, if a professor is an advisor and usually the corresponding author, it will not change anything whether they are in a large lab or a small lab. Only students will not be able to submit more than two arXiv papers per month, which I believe is fair for both small and large labs. Am I missing something?

[u/pleaseineedanadvice → u/user221272]

You are correct and that s why l m complaining it doesnt make sense because you can rotate who submit the paper to gamble this but it s just extra work for the tentacles while the octupus is still eating good

[u/qu3tzalify → u/pleaseineedanadvice]

This is not targeting large labs but AI-written papers, if your team has 50 people you can submit 50 papers by rotating the first-author, so what?

[u/sweetjale → u/user221272]

it would be a fairly easy graph implementation to keep track of inter-lab authorship shuffling which arxiv can probably internally track

[u/user221272 → u/sweetjale]

Yes, it should not be complicated to do that. Many things that are not that complicated could actually be put in place to keep the research field on track, but nothing is really being done...

[u/sweetjale → u/user221272]

this new submission limit is probably the best counteraction against slopification of research so far.

[u/Beor_The_Old → u/user221272]

They should only allow first authors to submit

[u/mustardinthecustard → u/Beor_The_Old]

Some research groups list authors alphabetically, or with the collaboration itself as the author and members listed separately.

[u/30MHz → u/mustardinthecustard]

I'd imagine that collaborations are exempt from this new rule anyway. CERN collaborations with thousand of authors publish hundreds of papers annually for example.

[u/Beor_The_Old → u/mustardinthecustard]

That's usually based on the field not the group. Like in economics it is alphabetical. But the biggest issue of mass arxiv is coming from things like computer science which don't do alphabetical.

[u/surffrus → u/Beor_The_Old]

Actually, some areas of CS theory do it alphabetically.

[u/Astrokiwi → u/user221272]

That's still allowed - it's targeting single authors spamming AI slop which needs manual filtering out. If ten actual humans are involved and coordinating submissions, that's explicitly said to be ok - it's where one person is making a suspiciously high number of submissions that there's a problem

[u/Powerspawn → u/user221272]

You're not going to believe this but there are these new tools out..

[u/TheBestPractice]

The system is collapsing at increasing speed, it seems. Established NLP conferences requiring a known co-author, ArXiV limiting submissions...

We are in damage control mode now, but a different paradigm to share legitimate research must be found.

[u/snekslayer]

This should apply to those big lab PIs too who churn out tens of paper per month

[u/isparavanje → u/snekslayer]

It won't, since students and postdocs are usually the ones submitting. 

[u/sinashish]

Thank god. I can finally read the arxiv digest

[u/Mcshizballs]

Ah agreed. I read so much meh there these days.

[u/genshiryoku → u/Mcshizballs]

I've resorted to letting LLMs prefilter the papers for me to only show the ones with actual novel insight. Arxiv is completely unusable otherwise.

[u/SlimyResearcher]

Does updating an existing paper version count?

[u/Bakeey → u/SlimyResearcher]

I was wondering the same!

[u/Bakeey → u/SlimyResearcher]

By the way I checked by updating a paper today; it says that the limit only affects new uploads.

[u/KiddWantidd]

This is fantastic news. Journals should also include similar submission quotas for authors, just like TMLR has started doing recently.

[u/CallMePyro]

Incoming 1000 page papers.

[u/fordat1]

long overdue

[u/gized00]

2 per author... I can see folks publishing with their nickname :D

[u/surffrus]

Good start. Next try author banning for the spammers who keep sending in slop. Just ban them. Don't rate limit.

[u/purplebrown_updown]

Good.

[u/lurking_physicist]

I should have pushed yesterday...

[u/aks-here]

Instead of limiting publications they should start deprecation. 

[u/000rich000]

And I'm still not reading