On October 1, 2026, the preprint service arXiv began limiting each submitter to two new papers per month, regardless of research field. Submissions received in September 2026 reached a record 40,363, nearly double the figure for the same month two years earlier. arXiv's operators say the spread of AI tools is helping drive the surge. The workload of the experts who check whether papers meet scholarly standards before publication has grown, and even high-quality research is now being published late. The new cap applies to the person who actually submits a manuscript, not to every co-author. Comparing arXiv's new rule with the submission systems of international conferences shows that simply curbing submission numbers cannot solve the underlying challenge of sustaining the infrastructure that supports the publication of academic research.
arXiv's new rule: two per month, with revisions to existing papers exempt
Under the new limit, each submitter may post up to two new papers per month, counted across all categories combined. Submitting to different research fields does not change the cap. Manuscripts that are ultimately rejected also count as one submission, because the process of deciding whether to accept them still requires expert review.
In addition, the limit introduced in 2024 of no more than three submissions being processed at the same time remains in force.
The two-per-month cap restricts the number of new papers accepted in a given period. The three-in-process limit, by contrast, is meant to keep too many unchecked manuscripts from piling up at once. Submitters must satisfy both conditions.
| Submission situation | How the limit applies |
|---|---|
| Submitting new papers to different research fields | Up to two per month across all fields combined |
| A submitted manuscript is rejected | Counts as one submission for that month |
| A manuscript submitted last month is still under review this month | Does not count toward this month's quota, but does count toward the three-in-process limit |
| The submitter deletes a manuscript before it is published | Counts toward neither the monthly quota nor the in-process limit |
| Submitting a co-authored paper | Uses only the quota of the person who actually submits; other co-authors' quotas are not consumed |
For example, suppose two papers submitted in October are still under review in November.
When November begins, the monthly quota for new submissions returns to two. But because two papers are already in process, only one more can be added at that point. A new month does not reset every limit.
arXiv asks authors who submit around conference deadlines, or who want to release several manuscripts together, to plan ahead with these limits in mind.
Revisions to existing papers are treated differently.
The current "Submission rate" section of the moderation guidelines states explicitly that the two-per-month cap applies to new submissions. Revisions to existing papers fall under a separate rule: revisions beyond the fifth version are limited to one per week.
Note also that deleting a manuscript before publication is a different procedure from withdrawing a paper that has already been published.
Monthly submissions have nearly doubled in two years, and expert review is at its limit
arXiv received 40,363 submissions in September 2026. That is almost double the 20,569 received in September 2024, and roughly four times the 9,869 received in September 2016.
Comparing the same month across years shows how quickly volume has grown.
| Month | Submissions received by arXiv |
|---|---|
| September 2016 | 9,869 |
| September 2024 | 20,569 |
| September 2026 | 40,363 |
Source: arXiv's October 1, 2026 announcement on the submission limit. The figures show total submissions received, not the number of published papers or AI-generated papers.
In September 2026, support tickets sent to staff and moderators also reached nearly 9,000. In addition to checking the papers themselves, responding to inquiries from submitters is a significant burden.
Particularly sharp growth has occurred in cs.AI, the category for research on artificial intelligence. According to arXiv, submissions to this category have grown more than sixfold in two years.
However, cs.AI is a classification for papers that study AI, not a category collecting papers written by AI. The figure therefore cannot be used to infer the growth rate of AI-generated papers. The announcement also does not reveal how much of the overall increase is attributable to AI text generation.
The increase in volume is not the only problem arXiv cites. It says it is also seeing more papers with extremely narrow subjects and little scholarly substance, as well as so-called "salami papers," in which a single research result is sliced into multiple submissions.
Manuscripts stuffed with large amounts of content using AI also make review harder.
Even if the prose of such a manuscript looks like that of an academic paper, that alone does not establish its value as research. Experts must check what the paper newly demonstrates relative to existing work and whether it offers enough to support its claims.
Thomas Dietterich, chair of arXiv's editorial advisory council, explains that low-quality papers submitted in large numbers by a relatively small group of authors are consuming a disproportionate share of moderators' time.
The effects reach authors who consistently submit high-quality research as well. Publication of their papers is sometimes delayed by days to weeks.
The new monthly cap is intended to keep this review burden from being concentrated on a small number of submitters and to keep the publication of research running smoothly.
It is important to note that arXiv's pre-publication checks differ from the peer review conducted by journals and international conferences.
According to arXiv's official explanation, experts in each field review submitted content and categories to judge whether they meet scholarly standards. But appearing on arXiv does not mean a paper's claims have been verified through formal peer review.
arXiv also does not prohibit the use of AI in writing papers.
Significant AI use must be disclosed in the paper, and all authors are expected to take responsibility for the entire content. If AI generates nonexistent references or misleading statements, responsibility lies with the authors named on the paper.
In other words, while the submission cap applies only to the person who actually submits, responsibility for a paper's content falls on all of its co-authors.
Two per month for arXiv submitters, 20 for every ICLR co-author
arXiv is not the only venue trying to cope with the surge in submissions.
ICLR, a leading international conference in machine learning, has also set submission limits for its 2027 meeting.
The two systems differ significantly, however.
arXiv's limit of two per month applies to the person who actually submits a paper. ICLR 2027's cap of 20, by contrast, applies to every co-author named on a paper.
Under the author rules for the 2027 conference, ICLR limits each author to 20 submissions on which they appear as a co-author.
ICLR adds a further restriction: for papers that include no author qualified to serve as a reviewer, based on factors such as acceptance records at designated international conferences and journals, each author is limited to one such paper.
| Comparison | arXiv | ICLR 2027 |
|---|---|---|
| Who is counted | The person who actually submits the paper | All co-authors |
| Limit | Two new submissions per calendar month, across all fields combined | 20 submissions per author to the 2027 conference; one per author for papers with no author qualified to review |
| Checks before publication or acceptance | Checks fit with the field and scholarly standards | Peer review evaluates validity and scholarly significance |
| Mechanism supporting review | Limits submitters' submissions to ease the moderators' burden | For submissions with a qualified author, at least one author must register as a reviewer for three or more papers |
Sources: arXiv's official FAQ; ICLR 2027 author rules, "Quotas" and "Reciprocal Reviewing Requirement."
That said, arXiv is a service supporting the everyday sharing of research results, while ICLR is a system for reviewing and accepting papers for a single annual conference. Because their purposes and time frames differ, simply comparing two per month with 20 per conference does not tell us which is stricter.
ICLR's reviewer obligations also include exemptions, for example for teams without a qualified author and for people involved in running the conference.
At arXiv, legitimate co-authors who share submission duties can each use their own monthly quota. The official FAQ also advises co-authors to coordinate their submissions.
As a result, the cap affects a lab differently depending on whether one person submits all of its papers or several co-authors divide the work, even when the number of research results is the same.
It is not a system that limits an entire research group to two papers per month.
At ICLR, by contrast, no matter who handles the actual submission, the quota of every author named on the paper is consumed.
ICLR also asks submitters to take on reviewing duties, an attempt to secure enough experts to handle the growing number of submissions.
In an explanation from ICLR organizers, the problem cited is that in machine learning, where the number of researchers is growing rapidly, the number of experts available to review has not kept pace with the rise in submissions.
In other words, the conference is trying to address not only how to curb submission numbers but also who will check the ever-growing volume of papers.
AI pre-submission checks arrive, but they are no substitute for formal peer review
Alongside its submission limits, ICLR is working to improve manuscript quality by helping authors find problems before they submit.
One such effort is the Paper Assistant Tool (PAT), offered in collaboration with Google.
ICLR announced that from September 11 to 18, 2026, it would make an experimental AI assistance tool available for authors to use on an optional basis.
PAT uses Google's Gemini to check aspects such as the rigor of a paper's experimental design and research methods, the clarity of its English explanations, and the accuracy of its technical descriptions, and then presents authors with suggested improvements.
Notably, the tool's findings are not used in formal peer review.
Reviewers and the conference's organizing committee cannot see what PAT flags, and the findings are not used directly in acceptance decisions. The tool is designed purely as support for authors to improve their manuscripts before submission.
PAT's findings are not always correct, however.
It may judge correct statements to be errors, and it may also miss problems that actually exist. ICLR asks authors to verify for themselves whether the tool's findings are valid.
Having undergone an AI check does not guarantee a paper's accuracy.
This is an ICLR initiative, not an announcement that arXiv is adopting PAT.
Still, the idea of reducing the problems authors can fix themselves before submission, and thereby easing the burden of expert review afterward, speaks to the problem arXiv faces.
AI makes it easier than before to generate large volumes of text formatted like academic papers. But checking the scholarly value of that text does not automatically become easy.
If AI is also to be used in the checking process, it must be combined with a mechanism for humans to verify whether its findings are correct.
What matters is not just automating text generation and checking, but allowing experts to spend their time on the parts that truly need their review.
arXiv moves toward independent nonprofit status; the cap's effect is the next question
arXiv is also reviewing its own operating structure.
Beginning July 1, 2026, it has been moving from operating under Cornell University to becoming an independent nonprofit, aiming to increase decision-making flexibility and speed up technical development so that it can sustain the service over the long term.
On September 23, it also announced that it had secured multiyear funding commitments totaling $17.2 million from the Simons Foundation International, XTX Markets and the Siegel Family Endowment.
The funds will be used over three to five years for day-to-day operations, strengthening its technical infrastructure, and building out its organization as an independent nonprofit.
The support covers addressing AI-generated content, but the full $17.2 million will not go toward detecting AI-generated papers or similar efforts.
arXiv describes the two-per-month cap not as a permanent system but as a temporary measure that buys time to improve review procedures and support tools.
It plans to revisit the policy while monitoring the effects on authors and readers, but it has not said when the limit will end.
As of the announcement, it is also unclear how much the cap will lighten moderators' workload or how much it will shorten the wait for high-quality papers to be published.
Whether this effort succeeds probably cannot be judged simply by whether submission numbers fall.
Are research results that should be published now appearing faster than before? Has the situation in which a small number of high-volume submitters stall the review process improved? And is the cap unduly hindering legitimate research activity?
These points need to be examined continuously.
The spread of AI is lightening the burden of writing academic papers. Yet judging whether a paper has value as research still requires the knowledge and time of experts.
As the capacity to produce papers expands rapidly, how can the capacity to check their content be secured? What arXiv faces is a fundamental challenge in maintaining a system for sharing research results quickly and freely.
Whether arXiv can improve both the responsible preparation by those who submit and the review systems of those who receive submissions will shape how it is run going forward.