Introduction

On October 31, 2025, arXiv announced a major change for computer science submissions titled “Updated Practice for Review Articles and Position Papers in the arXiv CS Category.” The new rule means that authors can no longer freely upload review or position papers unless those papers have already been accepted through peer review at a recognized venue, like a journal or a top conference. The goal, according to arXiv, is to reduce the growing flood of low-quality review and position papers while focusing attention on those that have been properly vetted.

In other words, arXiv is raising the bar. The change aims to make it easier for readers to find credible, expert-driven papers while reducing the moderation burden caused by the recent surge in AI-assisted writing.

As someone who reads, cites, and learns from arXiv papers and as the author of an arXiv publication myself (A Bag-of-Sounds Approach to Multimodal Hate Speech Detection), I find this policy both reasonable and limiting. My own paper does not fall under the category of a review article or position paper, but being part of the author community gives me a closer view of how changes like this affect researchers across different stages. Below are my thoughts on what works about this update and what could be improved.

---

What Makes Sense

1. Quality control is important.
arXiv’s moderators have faced an explosion of review and position papers lately, especially as tools like ChatGPT make it simple to write large-scale summaries. Requiring prior peer review helps ensure that papers go beyond surface-level summaries and present well-supported insights.

2. It helps readers find reliable content.
This new policy should make it easier to find review and position papers that genuinely analyze the state of a field rather than just list references. Readers can trust that what they find has passed at least one layer of expert evaluation.

3. It protects the reputation of arXiv.
As arXiv grows, maintaining its credibility becomes harder. This rule shows that the platform wants to stay a trusted place for research, not a dumping ground for half-finished work.

---

What Feels Too Restrictive

1. Delayed sharing of ideas.
In fast-moving areas like AI, a good review or position paper is often most useful before it goes through months of peer review. Requiring acceptance first makes timely discussions harder and risks leaving out emerging voices.

2. Peer review is not always a perfect filter.
Some peer-reviewed papers lack depth, while others that are innovative struggle to get published. Using acceptance as the only sign of quality ignores the many great works still in progress.

3. It discourages open discussion.
Position papers often spark important debates or propose new frameworks. If they cannot be shared until they are formally accepted, the whole community loses the chance to discuss and refine them early on.

4. It creates fairness issues.
Not every subfield has equally strong conference or journal opportunities. This policy could unintentionally exclude researchers from smaller or less well-funded institutions.

---

My Take

I see why arXiv made this move. The moderation workload has likely become overwhelming, and the quality of submissions needs consistent standards. But I think the solution is too rigid. Instead of blocking all unreviewed papers, arXiv could build a middle ground.

For example:

• Let trusted researchers or groups submit unreviewed drafts that are clearly labeled as “pre-peer review.”
• Introduce a “community-reviewed” label based on endorsements or expert feedback.
• Create a temporary category where papers can stay for a limited time before being moved or archived.

This would preserve openness while keeping quality high.

---

Closing Thoughts

The tension between openness and quality control is not new, but AI and easy content creation have made it sharper. I believe arXiv’s new policy has good intentions, but it risks slowing collaboration and innovation if applied too strictly.

The best research environments are the ones that combine trust, feedback, and access. Hopefully, arXiv will keep experimenting until it finds a balance that protects quality without closing the door on fresh ideas.

— Andrew