Core Viewpoint - The new arXiv regulation requires that all review and position papers submitted to the computer science category must first be accepted by a formal journal or conference and undergo peer review, aiming to manage the increasing volume of low-quality submissions, particularly those generated by AI [1][3][5]. Group 1: New Submission Requirements - Authors must provide evidence of acceptance and successful peer review from a journal or conference when submitting their review or position papers to arXiv [3]. - Submissions that do not meet these criteria are likely to be rejected by arXiv [3]. Group 2: Rationale Behind the Regulation - The regulation was introduced due to the overwhelming number of review and position papers, which have become difficult to manage [3]. - The influx of low-quality AI-generated papers has significantly increased the workload for volunteer moderators at arXiv, prompting the need for stricter submission guidelines [3][5]. Group 3: Community Reactions - The new regulation has sparked debate within the research community, with concerns that it may undermine arXiv's role in facilitating timely dissemination of research, especially in fast-evolving fields like AI [5][6]. - Many researchers believe the new rules are too stringent and advocate for maintaining access to various reviews, suggesting the creation of a separate section or exploring new review methods [7][9]. Group 4: Proposed Solutions - Some researchers propose establishing a trust system where any individual can endorse articles, allowing readers to choose trusted endorsers for their reading [12].