ArXiv's 2023 AI rule was about authorship, not banning drafting help

The setup

By January 2023, the arrival of publicly available text-generating tools had reached a preprint repository used across computer science, physics, and beyond. A post on arXiv's own blog, dated 31 January 2023 and later edited on 7 February 2023 to add links, records the question the policy answers directly: 'Can ChatGPT be named an author of a research paper?' The post states 'the resounding answer from arXiv leaders and advisors is, No,' on the grounds that 'a computer program cannot, for example, take responsibility for the contents of a paper' or agree to arXiv's own terms and conditions.

What the documents show

The 2023 post publishes arXiv's new policy in full: authors must 'report in their work any significant use of sophisticated tools,' and the policy 'now include[s] in particular text-to-text generative AI among those that should be reported consistent with subject standards for methodology.' It restates that an author who signs a paper 'take[s] full responsibility for all its contents, irrespective of how the contents were generated,' and that a generative AI tool 'should not be listed as an author.' arXiv's current moderation page, read on 16 September 2026, carries the same policy essentially unchanged, with one addition: the list of outcomes an author is responsible for now names 'biased content' alongside the original 'inappropriate language, plagiarized content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content.'

The friction

The policy restricts authorship credit and requires disclosure; it does not restrict AI-assisted writing in general the way a ban would, and the 2023 post itself frames the change as extending an existing reporting duty — the one that already covered instruments and software — to cover generative AI, rather than creating a new category of prohibited conduct. Neither document defines what counts as 'significant use' with any threshold; the standard offered is that it should be 'consistent with subject standards for methodology,' which leaves individual fields, editors, and moderators to work out where routine drafting assistance ends and reportable use begins.

What changed in the work

For an author submitting to arXiv since early 2023, using a generative AI tool for drafting or editing is documented as permitted, provided its significant use is disclosed the way a specialized instrument or software package would be, and provided the author accepts responsibility for whatever the tool introduced into the final text. What the policy does not do, per these two documents, is pre-screen submissions for AI-generated errors before disclosure; that responsibility sits with the author at the point of signing.

• Does a repository's AI policy restrict authorship credit and require disclosure, or ban assisted writing outright?
• Where does 'significant use' start, and who in your field has actually drawn that line?
• If a tool introduced an error into a paper, whose name is on the paper when it is found?

A disclosure-and-responsibility rule is a narrower, more durable policy than an outright ban, and arXiv's own pages show it holding largely unchanged from January 2023 to the version in force here.