What an endorser is (and isn't) responsible for

Endorsing a first-time author is a small act with real impact. It's also easy to overthink. arXiv's guidance is actually quite specific about what endorsersEndorserAn arXiv author who is eligible to endorse in a subject area, which depends on their own recent papers there. On ResearchGuild, endorsers are volunteers who opt in to read abstracts. should and shouldn't do, and knowing that makes the job lighter and fairer.

ResearchGuild is independent and not affiliated with arXiv. EndorsementsEndorsementA statement, made on arXiv's own form by an established arXiv author, that you are someone who can reasonably contribute to a subject area. It is not peer review and doesn't guarantee acceptance. are made on arXiv's own form, and arXiv's pages are the final word.

What arXiv asks of you

arXiv's endorsement page sets out a short list.

Know the person, or see the paper

arXiv says you should know the person you endorse, or you should see the paper that person intends to submit. On ResearchGuild you'll usually be in the second situation: the author shares their manuscript with you.

Check it's appropriate for the subject area

This is the heart of it. arXiv says it doesn't expect you to read the paper in detail or verify the work is correct, but you should check that the paper is appropriate for the subject area.

Practically, that means asking:

• Does this paper belong in the categoryCategory (subject class)arXiv's topic label for a paper, such as cs.AI (Artificial Intelligence) or cs.CL (Computation and Language). Moderators and readers use it to route and find papers. the author has chosen?
• Is it a genuine scholarly contribution of the kind that appears in this area?
• Does the author engage with relevant, current work?

Know when not to endorse

arXiv says you should not endorse if:

• the author is unfamiliar with the basic facts of the field; or
• the work is entirely disconnected from current work in the area.

Neither of these is about whether you agree with the conclusions or would accept it at a top venue. The bar is "belongs in this community's conversation", not "is excellent".

Treat the paper as confidential

arXiv says that if you're sent a paper to read, you should treat it as privileged information and respect its confidentiality as you would if asked to review it for a journal. See Manuscript confidentiality for reviewers.

Record your decision on arXiv's form

After entering the author's code on arXiv's endorsement form, arXiv says you can tell it you do or do not wish to endorse the person. If you decide not to, arXiv asks you to use the form to say so explicitly; it's recorded as a negative endorsement“Do not endorse”The option on arXiv's endorsement form for an endorser who decides not to vouch for someone. It counts as a real vote, so declines here should also be recorded there.. See How to decline kindly.

What you're not responsible for

• Peer reviewPeer reviewFormal evaluation of a paper by independent experts, usually organised by a journal or conference, before it is accepted for publication. arXiv moderation and endorsement are not peer review.. arXiv states that endorsement is not peer review.
• Verifying correctness. arXiv doesn't expect you to check proofs, reproduce experiments or confirm results.
• ModerationModerationarXiv's check of every submission for fit and basic quality before it is announced. It is separate from endorsement and from peer review.. Endorsed papers still go through arXiv's moderation, where volunteer subject experts check each submission. Your endorsement doesn't guarantee acceptance, and moderators may still reclassify or hold a paper.
• The author's future conduct. arXiv says the contents of submissions are the responsibility of the submitter, and it reserves the right to revoke endorsement from submitters who violate its policies.

Why this matters more since 2026

As of January 2026, per arXiv, institutional email alone no longer qualifies new authors for automatic endorsement. arXiv made the change to stem a flood of low-quality, non-scientific submissions. That puts more weight on personal endorsers to apply arXiv's check thoughtfully, neither rubber-stamping nor gatekeeping beyond what arXiv asks.

Fairness and conflicts

A few principles we encourage on ResearchGuild:

• Judge the work, not the person's background. Institution, country, career stage and English fluency aren't criteria arXiv lists.
• Declare conflicts. If you're a close collaborator or competitor, consider stepping back.
• Never accept anything in exchange for an endorsement.
• Be kind. A clear, respectful explanation helps an author far more than silence.

Feedback is separate from endorsement

On ResearchGuild, many reviewers give feedback even when they decide not to endorse. That's valuable and entirely optional. See Giving useful pre-submission feedback.