arXiv Prepares to Leave Cornell, Stay Free

The place giving away 2.9 million papers for free

If you’ve ever searched for a paper on AI, physics, or math, you’ve probably run into the name arXiv. It’s a preprint¹ service that lets researchers share their manuscripts before they’ve cleared peer review at a journal. Because it lets people read cutting-edge research immediately, it’s become a staple for many researchers.

Physicist Paul Ginsparg started arXiv in 1991 at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and by the end of 2025 it hosted more than 2.9 million papers. It runs on a staff of 28 plus roughly 260 volunteer subject-area moderators. arXiv’s 2025 Annual Report

arXiv is set to spin off from Cornell University into an independent nonprofit on July 1, 2026. Cornell has framed the move as a way to speed up technical development, give the organization more operational flexibility, expand partnerships, and secure long-term financial stability. It has also stated that the principle of free access to research will remain unchanged. Cornell’s official announcement

More submissions mean more review and system maintenance costs

Finances offer a rough gauge of operational scale. Actual operating costs for fiscal year 2025 came to about $6.7 million, against revenue of roughly $6.41 million. That revenue figure includes about $820,000 in in-kind support from Cornell, covering administration and facilities. arXiv reported covering the resulting deficit of about $300,000 from its operating reserves. For fiscal year 2026, it has budgeted roughly $8.85 million in operating costs. arXiv budget and financial statements, Annual report

Workload is climbing too. New submissions in 2025 numbered about 284,000, up 16.6% year over year. As submissions grow, so does the work of handling not just initial review but revisions, withdrawals, disputes, and author inquiries. arXiv Annual Report

arXiv says it’s experiencing two AI-related shifts.

The first is a rise in papers researching AI itself. In 2025, computer science accounted for 46% of all submissions. Not every computer science paper is AI research, but growth in this field is having an outsized effect on operations.

The second is a rise in low-quality manuscripts written by AI. When plausible-sounding text is mass-produced and submitted without any check on whether the content actually holds up, the burden of catching it falls on operators and reviewers. The annual report cites this problem, alongside rising student submissions and citation manipulation schemes, as sources of the growing workload. arXiv Annual Report

Responding to these shifts requires ongoing investment in review staff and software. Becoming an independent corporation would give arXiv more room to build its own organization and funding sources, but incorporation alone won’t secure the money or people it needs.

Here is the corrected fragment:

Polishing Sentences with AI vs. Submitting Shoddy Papers

There’s research suggesting AI is already reshaping how papers get written. A 2025 study published in Science analyzed more than 2 million papers on arXiv, bioRxiv, and SSRN. Among the group of researchers presumed to be using LLMs, the researchers observed a stronger tendency toward increased paper output. At the same time, the research team noted that when AI smooths out the prose, it becomes harder to judge the quality of research from the writing alone. Summary from the participating university

It would be a mistake to treat “fixing English sentences with AI” and “producing a paper with weak evidence” as the same problem. A paper’s credibility has to be judged by examining its methods, data, and conclusions.

arXiv has tightened its submission rules. Starting in October 2025, review papers and position papers² in computer science are only accepted if the manuscript has already gone through peer review. This isn’t an outright ban on the category—just a new condition. arXiv’s annual report

On January 21, 2026, arXiv also changed how it verifies new submitters’ eligibility. If you have both an institutional email and a track record of prior arXiv papers in the relevant field, you get automatic endorsement. If you don’t meet that bar, you need endorsement from an existing, qualified author in the same field. Anyone who already has submission privileges keeps them. Notice on the endorsement policy change

This rule may well cut down on low-quality submissions, but it could burden early-career and independent researchers who have a hard time finding someone to vouch for them. I think that alongside strict eligibility checks, arXiv also needs to clearly explain the process by which researchers with short track records can qualify.

To keep the fast research-sharing arXiv has promised, it needs the capacity to actually review manuscripts. That’s exactly why, in its operations post-independence, rules, staffing, and finances all need to be examined together.

bioRxiv and medRxiv Have Already Gone Independent

Similar organizational shifts have happened before. bioRxiv, the life sciences preprint server, and medRxiv, its medical counterpart, brought in an independent nonprofit called openRxiv as their new operating body in March 2025. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the original host institution, continues to provide support as well. Together, the two services received roughly 64,000 new manuscript submissions over the course of 2025. openRxiv’s 2025 Year in Review

What these cases point to is a broader trend: setting up organizations dedicated solely to running these services. Rather than depending on a single research institution for support, they’re restructuring so that multiple institutions and funders can share in the operation.

Still, a high volume of submissions alone doesn’t mean the finances are secure. If a service costs more to run as usage grows, what matters is what funding sources it has actually secured after the reorganization.

Oswarld’s Lens

Looking at arXiv’s operating costs made me curious about how academic publishing companies themselves perform financially. RELX, Elsevier’s parent company, posted adjusted operating profit of roughly £3.2 billion in 2024. That figure spans legal information, risk analysis, and exhibitions businesses as well. Looking just at Elsevier’s Science, Technical & Medical division, adjusted operating profit was about £1.17 billion, for a margin of 38.4%. RELX 2024 results presentation

From a GTM strategy standpoint, I’m interested in who pays the costs in this market and who captures the returns. Research funding largely comes from public money, and many researchers peer-review papers without separate compensation. Universities and research institutions then pay subscription fees again just to read the papers that get published. Publishers do spend money on editing and running systems, but a structure where high margins are earned on top of researchers’ and institutions’ contributions is worth scrutinizing.

arXiv has let researchers post their results first and let readers read them for free. I think that sustaining this model requires a revenue structure that can keep operations running, just as much as it requires nonprofit legal status. Even a free-to-read service still costs money for people and servers.

In 2025, arXiv had 278 member institutions. It draws on a mix of institutional membership fees, foundation support, donations, and research grants. arXiv annual report I think what matters more than the sheer number of backers is whether that support can be sustained reliably over many years. If you hire staff on the strength of a one-time donation and the funding runs out, you may struggle to handle the workload that’s grown in the meantime.

I understand the worry that independence could lead to commercialization down the line. Cornell’s announcement commits to keeping the platform free, but going forward we’ll need to watch whether future funding conditions or operating policies undermine that principle. What I want to confirm about arXiv’s independence isn’t the name of whoever runs it, but who can keep covering the cost of free access, and for how long.

Closing

arXiv is preparing to spin off as an independent entity in July 2026. As AI research and submissions keep growing, reviewing manuscripts and maintaining the system now demands more resources. Becoming an independent organization could be one way to secure them.

The reason we can read papers for free is that someone else is footing the bill. I hope this reorganization leads to stable funding for operations, while still preserving the chance for new researchers to get their work noticed.

References & Further Reading

• Cornell’s arXiv independence announcement: Confirms the planned independence date, the transition goals, and the commitment to free access.
• arXiv 2025 Annual Report and budget/financial statements: Cover staffing, submission counts, finances, and policy changes.
• arXiv’s updated endorsement policy notice: Explains the new eligibility-verification process for new submitters, changed in January 2026.
• Keigo Kusumegi et al., Scientific production in the era of large language models, Science, 2025: A study analyzing the relationship between estimated LLM usage and paper output. The participating university’s explainer is worth reading alongside it.
• openRxiv 2025 Year in Review: Summarizes the operational transition and the year’s activity at bioRxiv and medRxiv.
• RELX 2024 results presentation: Breaks out performance for the group overall versus the Elsevier division.

The author is Oswarld (Kwangseob Ahn). Current roles: Adjunct Professor at Sejong University, Strategy Consultant at INLEVEL9. Career, research, books, and recent work are kept current on the About page. Latest · July 2026: HEMA-2: A Consolidation-Aware Tri-Memory Architecture with Multi-Channel Scheduling for Lifelong Conversational AI.

Footnotes

1. Preprint: A research manuscript made public before it has completed a journal’s formal peer review. It allows findings to be shared quickly, but the mere fact of publication does not mean the content has been verified. ↩

2. Position paper: An academic document that presents a stance or argument on a specific research topic along with supporting evidence. A review paper, by contrast, focuses more on synthesizing and examining existing research. ↩