arXiv is tapping the brakes

Today, arXiv announced¹ that it would be limiting the number of submissions per submitter: two per calendar month, with no more than three active submissions at any one time. (The cap applies to whoever submits a paper, not to every co-author on it.) At first glance, this would appear to be a small change. For many of us in the science world, it represents a sea change.

I understand why arXiv felt the need to do this, especially looking at the influx of submissions. A 29% month-over-month increase in September relative to August, from 31,173 new submissions to 40,363, is massive² (to be fair, a similar 22% jump happened last year, as the academic year got back underway). But the increases seem unrelenting: September’s total was 51% higher than a year earlier, and the first nine months of 2026 are running 30% ahead of the same period in 2025.² By arXiv’s own count, monthly submissions have nearly doubled in two years, and in the cs.AI category they’re up more than sixfold.¹ Sustained percentage growth is exponentiation, and when anything exponentiates over a long enough period of time, something has to give. At this year’s pace, arXiv’s submission volume doubles roughly every two and a half years. It took arXiv 23 years to reach its first million papers, eight more to reach two million, and only four more to reach three million.³

View larger

×

By asking submitters to select the two papers that they most want to submit each month, arXiv in principle addresses two concerns:

1. The acceleration is very high. Many academics are finding themselves far more productive. A study in Science, co-authored by arXiv co-creator Paul Ginsparg, estimated that researchers who adopted large language models went on to post 36% more papers to arXiv, and even more to bioRxiv (53%) and SSRN (60%).⁴ A Nature study of 41.3 million papers found that scientists who engage in AI-augmented research publish about three times as many papers as those who don’t.⁵ The precise size of these effects is debated,⁶ but arXiv’s own numbers leave little doubt about the direction.
2. The human review and vetting process that arXiv does every single day won’t scale if all of us are submitting more and more papers. That vetting is done by hundreds of volunteer moderators, subject-matter experts with terminal degrees in their fields,⁷ and September’s submissions alone generated almost 9,000 support tickets. arXiv says the new policy is meant “to equitably distribute our volunteer moderators’ time across arXiv authors.”¹ The cap also helps address the problem of quality. If we’re limited to a certain number of papers, we’ll be very careful to make sure that those papers are the ones that we’re most proud of. This deceleration of submissions may indeed help arXiv sustain such a project.

This isn’t the first time arXiv has had to push back against the flood. Last fall it stopped accepting unrefereed review and position papers in its computer science category,⁸ and this spring it began banning authors caught submitting hallucinated references for a year.⁹

The forward progress of science relies on trust, people, and infrastructure. When the infrastructure begins to buckle under the weight of new submissions, the other pillars strain, and the frontier of science doesn’t get pushed as fast as it can be.

Reading the literature without hammering the repository

One of the challenges of AI-accelerated science is the need for large language models to be able to read, discover, and ideate over a live corpus of literature. Right now, the best that we can do with arXiv itself is try to web-scrape it. arXiv pushes back on that, and for good reason: it’s inefficient, and it doesn’t scale well when so much of the traffic is bots trying to go through search bars. arXiv states plainly that it has “limited server capacity” and that its first priority is “to support interactive use by human users,”¹⁰ and its API terms ask for no more than one request every three seconds.¹¹

That’s the reason why we made an MCP toolkit for arXiv and many other publications: to allow agents to leave the repositories themselves alone and hit our servers to get the same data in a token-efficient, fast, and compliant (where appropriate) way. Valency Bond is generally available today, and I hope those of you doing deep research will give it a spin.

We’ve also been thinking very deeply about, and building, something that leans into the pressing interest of many to publish more, not less. You’ll have to watch this space to learn more.

The beginning of another era

It’s hard to overstate the impact that arXiv has had on science over the last 35 years. arXiv has two creators: Joanne Cohn and Paul Ginsparg. Starting in 1989, Cohn, then a string-theory postdoc at the Institute for Advanced Study, collected preprints and emailed them to a distribution list that grew to several hundred colleagues. In the summer of 1991, Ginsparg wrote scripts to automate her list, and that August she handed it over to him.¹² What they started now holds more than 3 million papers and serves more than 5 million users every month.³

I’ve been using arXiv for 30 years. My first post was a conference paper on gamma-ray bursts,¹³ and I’ve since submitted more than 300 works there. It’s been central to my academic career.

Institutionally, arXiv is on firmer footing than ever, having just launched as an independent nonprofit with $17.2 million in multiyear philanthropic support.¹⁴ We’re so happy to have Steinn Sigurðsson, arXiv’s scientific director, as an advisor to Valency, helping us think about what systems might be put in place for an AI-accelerated future.

The end of an era always means the beginning of another. This is not to say that arXiv will not remain highly relevant and central to the future of science. It’s just that today’s announcement appears to be an acknowledgment that, indeed, as times are changing, new ways of furthering the progress of science need to emerge.

References & Further Reading