Can unreviewed preprints shape scientific debate before peer review?

On 2025-05-16 the MIT Department of Economics published two statements about a preprint, "Artificial Intelligence, Scientific Discovery, and Product Innovation," posted to arXiv in November 2024. The first is a letter from MIT's Committee on Discipline to arXiv. After a confidential internal review, it says MIT "has no confidence in the provenance, reliability or validity of the data and has no confidence in the veracity of the research contained in the paper," and asks that the paper be marked as withdrawn. The second is a public statement. It says the paper "is already known and discussed extensively in the literature on AI and science, even though it has not been published in any refereed journal," and that MIT is speaking because, "even in its non-published form, the paper is having an impact on discussions and projections about the effects of AI on science." Its conclusion is that "the findings reported in this paper should not be relied on in academic or public discussions of these topics."

The mechanism is procedural. The excerpt notes that preprints "by definition, have not yet undergone peer review," and that only an arXiv author can submit a withdrawal request. MIT says it directed the author to submit one, that the author had not done so, and so it asked arXiv directly, and it also wrote to The Quarterly Journal of Economics, where the paper had been submitted. The letter says the review was based on allegations about "certain aspects of this paper" and that including the paper on arXiv "may violate arXiv's Code of Conduct." MIT's stated reason for going public is a formal step "it could take to mitigate the effects of misconduct," given the paper's prominence. Student privacy law and MIT policy keep the review's outcome confidential, so what outsiders receive is the institution's judgment about reliability, not the findings.

The nearest note on AI-generated research argues that journals and arXiv "can neither scale nor quality-control" that output, and proposes a venue built around closed-loop review. This case is that gap seen after the fact: arXiv hosted a paper it did not check, the paper became a reference point before any review, and the correction ran through MIT's letters, with the author's withdrawal still pending when they were written. The ICML randomized study, Does banning LLM use in peer review change review outcomes?, measures what peer review does with LLM rules; this excerpt concerns the stretch before review, where an unreviewed preprint shaped projections. The narrative-paper note's case for artifacts that keep the evidence behind each claim addresses the same provenance question MIT raises, though this excerpt says nothing about artifacts.

What the excerpt does not establish is the substance. It gives no detail of the review, the data, or the alleged problems, and it offers no evidence on the paper's findings either way. This note therefore does not treat the paper as right or wrong, and it does not cite the paper's findings as evidence for anything. What the excerpt does establish is narrower: an unreviewed preprint can shape a field's projections before anyone checks it, and when an institution later says the work should not be relied on, outsiders can only weigh that judgment. The implication is that unreviewed AI-and-science claims deserve provisional treatment until their status is settled, and that a statement like MIT's is a claim about reliability to be read as one, not a verdict.