The arXiv limit
Putting my community service hat on, I thought I would relay an announcement on the arXiv blog that it is introducing a limit on the rate that any individual can submit papers to arXiv. To start with, the limit will be two per month. This limit applies to the submitter, not to all the authors, so I think large collaborations will find a way around it by having different co-authors do the submissions.
The reason for this limit is very clear:
The rate of submissions is currently growing in an uncontrolled and alarming way. Most of this growth is driven by AI, which makes it very easy for authors to flood the arXiv with boilerplate papers. All this is making life impossible for the moderators. It will be very interesting to see if this move manages to stem the tide.
If you have any questions, please read the FAQ on the page here. One thing I’m not sure about is whether the limit applies to replacements as well as new submissions. It doesn’t seem to be addressed in the FAQs.
October 3, 2026 at 12:44 am
A couple of days ago, there was an interesting article offering a very good suggestion, in my opinion: to separate submissions into two channels – accepted papers and not yet accepted. Strongly support this idea, as it will drastically reduce the number of texts I need to review daily.
arXiv:2609.35787
October 3, 2026 at 4:25 pm
I saw the paper. If I get time I’ll do a post about it.
October 3, 2026 at 11:41 am
There was an article a couple of days ago on astro-ph, with an analysis of papers submitted to the website that had been accepted vs those only submitted. Apparently something like 50% are only submitted. (May be more – cannot recall. Certainly the number of papers not yet journal accepted seems to be increasing). Presumably these could end up being rejected and unpublished, but yet remain on the website to be referenced. The author suggests splitting the website into two – one for accepted papers; one for submitted, so readers could decide not to read submitted ones until accepted. I have only submitted papers to the website when they have been accepted by a journal, but I don’t work in areas where there is massive competition, where I have been told its important to get results out to the community ASAP.
October 3, 2026 at 11:42 am
It would have been sensible of me to read the previous submission before posting mine!
October 3, 2026 at 4:23 pm
Yes, I saw that article. I disagree with a lot of it. I’ll do a post on it at some point.
October 3, 2026 at 4:50 pm
[…] Источники: arXiv — новая политика лимитов, Startup Fortune — реакция исследователей и прежние меры arXiv, In the Dark — Питер Коулз о лимите […]
October 3, 2026 at 4:50 pm
[…] Дереккөздер: arXiv — шектеулердің жаңа саясаты, Startup Fortune — зерттеушілердің реакциясы және arXiv-тің бұрынғы шаралары, In the Dark — Питер Коулз шек туралы […]
October 3, 2026 at 5:53 pm
[…] — зерттеушілердің реакциясы және бұрынғы шаралар, In the Dark — Питер Коулз шек туралы, Wikipedia — Пол […]
October 3, 2026 at 5:54 pm
[…] Startup Fortune — реакция исследователей и прежние меры, In the Dark — Питер Коулз о лимите, Wikipedia — Пол […]
October 5, 2026 at 12:05 am
[…] count, is the one that drew early comment. Peter Coles, who writes the blog In the Dark, noted on his blog that the limit is per submitter, not per paper author, and suggested that large collaborations […]
October 7, 2026 at 9:27 pm
[…] mentioned this paper on this blog because a couple of readers commented about it on a post earlier this week (here and here) I’ll leave it to readers to decide for themselves what they think […]