40,000 papers a month, double in two years: we counted every arXiv paper to see why it now caps submitters at two

The reason is volume. arXiv received a record 40,363 submissions in September 2026. Two years earlier, in September 2024, it was 20,569. That's nearly double in two years.

Now that front door to the world's research is getting jammed. arXiv's operators say the flood includes a growing number of low-substance papers written with AI.

But is AI really what's driving the surge? We pulled arXiv's public data and recounted all 38,908 papers posted in September 2026. What we found was growth that AI research alone can't explain.

First, a quick note on how arXiv works. It doesn't judge whether a paper is correct. But subject experts check every incoming paper to make sure it's a genuine research paper filed in the right category. Those checkers are volunteer researchers, 262 of them as of 2025, supported by a staff of fewer than 30.

262 volunteers, 40,000 papers a month. The new cap exists to protect their time.

The key points of the rule:

• It counts the submitter, not the authors. Being listed as a co-author doesn't use up your quota.
• Rejections count. If both of your papers are rejected, you can't submit again until next month.
• The limit is across all fields. One math paper and one physics paper and you're done.
• No more than three papers can be pending at once. That rule has been in place since 2024.

arXiv calls the measure provisional and says it will adjust it as it watches the effects. It doesn't ban using AI to write papers. It asks authors to disclose that use and take responsibility for the content.

The cap didn't come out of nowhere

arXiv has been tightening up step by step over the past year:

• October 2025: In computer science, review articles and position papers are accepted only with proof that they passed peer review.
• January 2026: Stricter endorsement for first-time submitters in every field.
• May 2026: A one-year ban for clear evidence of unchecked AI output in a paper.

Then came October's two-a-month cap for everyone. In September alone, arXiv handled close to 9,000 support tickets. In all of 2025, it handled 41,000, so one month brought more than a fifth of the previous year's load.

Here are arXiv's monthly submissions since 1991.

Going from 5,000 to 10,000 papers a month took ten years. From 10,000 to 20,000 took six years and seven months. From 20,000 to 40,000 took just three years and four months.

The pace of doubling has itself nearly doubled.

And it isn't only arXiv. Submissions to the big AI conferences are soaring too:

• AAAI: from 15,532 in 2025 to 30,948 in 2026, about 2x in a year
• ICLR: from 11,603 in 2025 to 19,525 in 2026, about 1.7x

Each conference counts a little differently, but the entrances to academic publishing are jamming up everywhere.

Which fields are growing? We compared September 2024 with September 2026.

Papers with AI (cs.AI) as their primary category went from 392 to 2,361, a 6.02x jump in two years. That reproduces arXiv's own claim of "more than sixfold." But count every paper that carries the AI tag as a secondary category too, and the numbers go from 2,650 to 5,923, or 2.24x. How you count changes the story quite a bit.

The surprise was math. Papers tagged with a math category rose from 3,833 to 9,112, 2.38x in two years.

Over the most recent year (September 2025 to September 2026), 52.6% of the added papers had no computer science category at all. More than half the growth came from outside AI and computing.

Solo-authored papers grew 2.3x in a year

Another number jumped out: papers with a single author.

They went from 2,892 in September 2025 to 6,635 in September 2026, 2.29x in one year. Their share of all papers rose from 11% to 17%.

About half (51%) of the added solo papers were primarily math. Math has always had plenty of single-author papers, but this is still a big jump for one year.

A solo author can't hand the submitting to a co-author. So anyone writing three or more papers a month on their own will feel the new rule in full.

What the last two months tell us about AI and papers

So how deep has AI gotten into research writing? Studies have been finding AI-rewritten text since around 2024. Here's what the newest numbers, all from the past two months, show:

• Writing: An August study of nearly 1.2 million biomedical papers estimated that 89% of papers from late 2025 show signs of AI-assisted writing or editing. That's about the prose, not a claim that AI produced the science.
• Reviewing: In September, ICML, a top AI conference, published a survey of its 2026 peer review. Even among reviewers told not to use AI, 165 of 732, or 22.5%, said they did.
• Gatekeeping: At the machine learning journal TMLR, the share of papers rejected before review rose from about 6% in 2023 to about 53%. When the editors asked authors to explain their own work, three of the seven who responded couldn't answer basic questions about it.

The conferences are changing their systems, too. In September, ACL, the main body for language-processing research, said reviewing could no longer keep up with submissions and that it would accept papers in line with how much reviewing capacity authors bring.

Writers, reviewers and gatekeepers are all now working on the assumption that AI is in the loop. That's the picture from the past two months. Still, how much of arXiv's growth AI accounts for can't be measured from the public data.

Are papers built only on public data hitting a wall?

There's another shift we've heard about from inside academia.

A university faculty member we spoke with told us that in the past few months, studies that only analyze public datasets, without collecting new data, are increasingly being rejected at the first screening.

There is evidence of this from publishers. In September 2025, Frontiers announced it was turning away, before peer review, papers that run routine analyses of public health datasets such as NHANES, the US national health survey, without new validation. For NHANES alone, 1,382 papers had been rejected since May 2025. The worry is that AI makes it easy to mine public data for plausible-looking correlations and churn out papers. Near-duplicate NHANES papers jumped from 12 in 2022 to 198 in 2024.

That doesn't mean all public-data research gets rejected. In September 2026, a study that used NHANES to present a new analysis method was published in PLOS Digital Health. What matters, we think, is less where the data comes from than whether the paper asks a question and runs checks no one else has.

Finally, how many papers will the new rule actually block? We ran the numbers on September's data.

First, we counted authors whose names appear on three or more papers in a single month. In September 2026 they made up 9.48% of author names, almost double the 4.84% of September 2020. Names on 11 or more papers in a month rose from 236 to 1,070 in a single year.

Papers involving at least one of these authors made up 46.5% of September's total.

That does not mean nearly half of all papers will be blocked. The rule applies only to the one person who submits.

So we tested two assumptions:

• If co-authors share the submitting as efficiently as possible: 263 papers, or 0.68%, could not fit under anyone's two-a-month limit. Of those, 246 were single-author papers.
• If the first author always submits: 1,588 papers, or 4.08%, would go over the limit.

In practice, only a few percent of papers are likely to be blocked. That's a small share, but it's concentrated among a handful of extremely prolific posters, and that's exactly who arXiv is targeting. Thomas Dietterich, who helps run arXiv's computer science section, says a small number of very high-volume submitters take up a disproportionate share of moderators' time, delaying other papers by days or even weeks.

Researchers are divided

Reactions have been mixed.

Some support the move. AI researcher Xin Eric Wang called it a good way to curb extreme mass submissions, as long as first authors are the ones submitting. The physics blog Telescoper also said it understood the reasoning, given the strain on moderators.

Others are worried. In the comments on mathematician Terence Tao's blog, one reader argued that slower posting could make priority claims and information-sharing depend more on private networks. On Hacker News, some argued the real fix is to stop judging researchers by paper count.

EDITOR'S TAKE: How Ogasawara reads it

What's scarce isn't writing power. It's reading time

Three things we took away from recounting September's papers.

AI has made writing papers faster. It hasn't given 262 volunteers any more hours. arXiv capped submissions not because people are writing too much, but because the time available to read has hit its limit. Journals now reject more than half of papers at the door, and conferences are throttling submissions to match their reviewer pool, for the same reason.

The number of names on 11 or more papers a month more than quadrupled in a year. As long as researchers are judged by paper count, those who can write fastest with AI will keep adding papers. The two-a-month cap is first aid. The real fix, in our view, has to come from how research is evaluated.

We read arXiv papers every week to report our stories. At 40,000 papers a month, a paper getting attention isn't automatically one you can trust. Who wrote it, where it was reviewed and how it connects to other work all matter more than ever. Good judgment on the reading side is becoming essential.