A recent analysis of 12,750 papers submitted to arXiv found that over 30% of new submissions in 2026 read as machine-written, according to unslop.run. The study used a calibrated detection threshold that flagged only 0.4% of pre-ChatGPT papers, ensuring minimal false positives. This marks a significant rise in AI-generated or AI-assisted academic writing across the platform.
The methodology involved scoring the full text of papers and comparing results against a control group of pre-LLM (large language model) papers to establish a baseline false-positive rate. The analysis showed a steady increase in flagged papers from 2021 to 2026, with certain fields exhibiting higher shares of AI-written content. The study also acknowledged limitations, including the inherent challenge of distinguishing AI-generated text from human writing with absolute certainty.
This trend highlights the growing integration of AI tools in academic research and writing. As AI models become more sophisticated, their use in drafting or generating scientific papers is becoming more common. The findings raise questions about authorship, originality, and peer review processes in scientific publishing. The study’s calibrated approach provides a more nuanced understanding compared to earlier reports that may have overestimated AI-written content due to higher false-positive rates.
The analysis covered about 300 papers per field over the 12 months leading to July 2026, offering a broad snapshot of AI’s impact on academic publishing. The detection threshold was specifically set to minimize false positives, flagging only 0.4% of papers before the widespread adoption of ChatGPT, underscoring the reliability of the reported 30% figure.