arXiv Caps Submissions at Two a Month as AI Papers Pile Up

arXiv, the free preprint server where most AI research first appears, has started rationing. Under a policy announced on 1 October and effective the same day, each submitter can post at most two papers per calendar month and have no more than three submissions active at any one time. The reason is volume. arXiv received 40,363 submissions in September 2026, a record and nearly double the 20,569 it took in September 2024.

The growth is uneven, and the unevenness is the story. arXiv says submissions overall doubled in two years, but its cs.AI category, for artificial intelligence papers, grew sixfold over the same period. September alone produced around 9,000 support tickets for a moderation team that is largely made up of volunteers. Moderators reported a rise in what arXiv describes as “thin papers of narrow scope” and “salami papers”, a single piece of work sliced into several submissions to multiply the count. The organisation links the surge directly to AI tools that make it far cheaper to produce a paper-shaped document.

The cap is aimed at a minority. “A relatively small proportion of authors are submitting a large number of low-quality papers and consuming a disproportionate fraction of the moderators’ time,” said Thomas Dietterich, who chairs arXiv’s Editorial Advisory Council. The rules are written to close the obvious loopholes. Rejected papers count against the monthly limit, which arXiv says is meant to encourage careful curation. Submissions in every subject area share one allowance. The limit applies to the person who presses submit, so co-authors are not charged for a paper someone else uploads. Papers withdrawn before they are announced do not count.

The reaction from researchers has been split, Times Higher Education reports. Rutgers mathematician Alex Kontorovich welcomed it: “I’m not going to read your 42 papers this month. Pick two, your very best two.” Harvard Business School’s Scott Kominers, an arXiv contributor for almost 20 years, argued that the platform should “economise on moderation – not on scholarship,” pointing out that choosing papers likely to pass moderation is not the same as choosing the most valuable ones. Large labs and prolific groups, where one person often handles uploads for a whole team, will feel it most, especially in the weeks before conference deadlines. arXiv’s only advice there is to plan submissions carefully. It offers no formal exception process.

arXiv calls the cap a stopgap while it works out longer-term rules and better moderation tools. The irony is plain enough. The site that published much of the research behind today’s language models is now limiting access because those models make writing papers so easy. For readers who follow AI through arXiv, the immediate effect may be a slightly quieter daily feed. The open question is whether a per-person quota reduces the low-effort flood, or simply moves it to accounts that have not used their two slots yet.