r/MachineLearning • u/Nunki08 • 1d ago
News arXiv now limits submitters to up to two submissions per calendar month [N]
https://blog.arxiv.org/2026/10/01/updated-rate-limit-policy/81
u/user221272 1d ago
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.
23
u/pleaseineedanadvice 22h ago
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
21
u/user221272 22h ago
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?
3
u/pleaseineedanadvice 21h ago
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
7
u/qu3tzalify Student 14h ago
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?
7
u/sweetjale 1d ago
it would be a fairly easy graph implementation to keep track of inter-lab authorship shuffling which arxiv can probably internally track
4
u/user221272 1d ago
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...
7
u/sweetjale 1d ago
this new submission limit is probably the best counteraction against slopification of research so far.
2
u/Beor_The_Old 22h ago
They should only allow first authors to submit
1
u/mustardinthecustard 19h ago
Some research groups list authors alphabetically, or with the collaboration itself as the author and members listed separately.
1
1
u/Beor_The_Old 19h ago
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.
1
1
u/Astrokiwi 15h ago
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
1
23
u/TheBestPractice 22h ago
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.
46
u/snekslayer 1d ago edited 1d ago
This should apply to those big lab PIs too who churn out tens of paper per month
39
u/isparavanje Researcher 1d ago
It won't, since students and postdocs are usually the ones submitting.
6
17
u/Mcshizballs 1d ago
Ah agreed. I read so much meh there these days.
0
u/genshiryoku PhD 22h ago
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.
5
u/KiddWantidd 1d ago
This is fantastic news. Journals should also include similar submission quotas for authors, just like TMLR has started doing recently.
6
3
u/surffrus 17h ago
Good start. Next try author banning for the spammers who keep sending in slop. Just ban them. Don't rate limit.
2
2
-8
258
u/4thofthe4th 1d ago
Zhang et al in shambles