AI Transparency Requirements for Journal Submissions

The Shift Toward Mandatory AI Disclosure

Two years ago, most publishers had no policy on AI usage. Today, nearly every major scientific publisher requires authors to disclose when and how they used AI tools during the research and writing process. This shift happened fast, and the policies continue to evolve.

If you are preparing a journal submission, you need to know what your target journal expects. Getting it wrong can delay your paper or, in the worst case, lead to a retraction. This guide covers the current policies at the major publishers and explains how to meet their requirements efficiently.

Publisher Policies at a Glance

The following table summarizes AI disclosure requirements across major scientific publishers as of early 2026.

Publisher	AI as Author?	Disclosure Required?	Where to Disclose	Key Details
Nature Portfolio	No	Yes	Methods or Acknowledgments	Must specify which tools and how they were used
Science (AAAS)	No	Yes	Methods and Acknowledgments	Text generated by AI must be noted
IEEE	No	Yes	Acknowledgments section	Must describe the AI tool and its role
ACM	No	Yes	New dedicated section	Updated policy requires detailed accounting
Elsevier	No	Yes	Dedicated disclosure section	Submission form includes AI usage checkbox
Springer Nature	No	Yes	Methods or Acknowledgments	Aligned with Nature Portfolio policy
Wiley	No	Yes	Acknowledgments	Authors must describe AI contributions
Taylor & Francis	No	Yes	Acknowledgments	Must name tools and describe usage
PLOS	No	Yes	Methods	Any AI usage in writing or analysis

One thing every publisher agrees on is that AI systems cannot be listed as authors. The reasoning is simple. Authorship implies accountability, and an AI system cannot take responsibility for the accuracy or integrity of a publication.

Nature Portfolio

Nature was among the first high-profile journals to formalize its AI policy. The current requirements state that authors must disclose the use of any AI tool in the research or writing process. The disclosure should appear in the Methods section or in the Acknowledgments, depending on whether the AI was used as part of the research methodology or as a writing aid.

Nature explicitly requires that authors name the specific AI tool used, describe how it was used, and confirm that they take full responsibility for the accuracy of any AI-assisted content. The policy applies to all journals in the Nature Portfolio, including Nature Communications, Nature Medicine, and the Nature Reviews series.

One important detail is that Nature does not distinguish between different types of AI assistance. Whether you used an AI for data analysis, figure generation, or proofreading, it all needs to be disclosed.

Science (AAAS)

Science's policy mirrors Nature's in most respects. Authors must disclose the use of AI tools in both the Methods section and the Acknowledgments. The policy specifically mentions that any text produced by an AI tool must be flagged, and that AI-generated images or figures must also be disclosed.

Science has also made clear that the use of AI tools does not excuse authors from their obligation to verify the accuracy of all claims in the paper. If an AI helps you draft a paragraph that contains an incorrect statement, you are responsible for that error.

IEEE

IEEE's policy requires that AI tool usage be disclosed in the Acknowledgments section of the paper. The policy is somewhat less prescriptive than Nature's or Science's, but it still requires authors to identify the AI tool by name and describe its role in the research or writing process.

IEEE has been particularly focused on image and figure generation. If any figures in your paper were created or modified using AI tools, this must be disclosed even if you later edited the output significantly.

ACM

The Association for Computing Machinery updated its policy in late 2023 and has continued to refine it since. ACM now requires a dedicated section in the paper that describes any use of generative AI tools. This goes beyond what most other publishers require.

The ACM policy distinguishes between different levels of AI involvement and asks authors to be specific about which parts of the paper were assisted by AI tools. For conference submissions, the ACM author form now includes specific questions about AI usage that must be answered before submission.

Elsevier

Elsevier, the world's largest academic publisher by volume, added an AI disclosure requirement across all its journals. The submission system now includes a checkbox and text field specifically for AI usage declaration. Authors must complete this section regardless of whether they used AI tools (a "no usage" declaration is expected if that is the case).

Elsevier's policy is notable for requiring disclosure in the published paper itself, not just in the submission metadata. The publisher provides a specific location for the disclosure statement in the manuscript template.

How to Write a Disclosure That Satisfies Any Publisher

Despite the differences in where each publisher wants the disclosure to appear, the content they all want to see is remarkably similar. A disclosure statement that covers the following points will meet the requirements at any of the major publishers.

Name the tools. Include the specific name, version, and developer of each AI tool. "ChatGPT (GPT-4, OpenAI)" is good. "An AI chatbot" is not.

Describe the usage. Explain what each tool was used for. Was it writing assistance, code generation, data analysis, literature search, figure creation, or something else?

State your verification process. How did you check the AI output for accuracy and quality? This is especially important for any AI-assisted content that could contain errors.

Affirm responsibility. State clearly that the authors take full responsibility for the content of the paper, including any AI-assisted portions.

Here is a template that works across publishers.

The authors used [Tool Name] ([Version], [Developer]) for [specific purpose, e.g., "improving the clarity of the English text" or "generating initial drafts of the data processing scripts in Section 3"]. All AI-generated content was reviewed, verified, and revised by the authors, who take full responsibility for the final published text.

Meeting Requirements Efficiently with AI Usage Cards

Keeping track of different publisher requirements and formatting your disclosure accordingly can be tedious, especially if you submit to multiple venues. The AI Usage Cards generator at ai-cards.org provides a standardized format that captures all the information any major publisher currently requires.

You fill in the details once, and the generated card includes the tool names, versions, purposes, and verification steps in a structured format. You can then adapt this information to the specific format your target journal requires. Some authors include the full AI Usage Card as supplementary material and write a shorter summary statement in the paper itself.

This approach has a practical advantage. If your paper is rejected from one venue and you resubmit to another with different formatting requirements, the underlying information is already organized. You just need to adjust the placement, not recreate the content.

The Trend Is Clear

The direction of travel is obvious. Every major publisher now requires some form of AI disclosure, and the requirements are becoming more detailed over time, not less. Publishers that started with a simple "please mention it in the acknowledgments" policy in 2023 have since moved to structured disclosure requirements with specific fields.

There is also growing coordination between publishers. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has issued guidance that most publishers are adopting as a baseline, which means policies are converging. What satisfies Nature today will likely satisfy most journals tomorrow.

For researchers, the practical takeaway is straightforward. Start documenting your AI usage from the beginning of every project. Keep a running log of which tools you used, when, and for what purpose. When you are ready to submit, converting that log into a publisher-compliant disclosure statement is easy. Trying to reconstruct your AI usage months after the fact is not.

For a broader look at whether your specific situation requires disclosure, see our guide on whether you need to disclose AI usage. If you are looking for the policy of a specific journal, check our journal policy directory.