(updated November 2026)
For researchers, an important consideration when deciding whether to use generative AI for scientific writing are the editorial policies of journals. Initially, some publishers had instituted bans on generative AI, while others had asked authors to request permission to use GenAI on a case-by-case basis. Currently, the shared position among most publishers is that GenAI is permissible as long as its use is disclosed within the manuscript (e.g. Science, JAMA Network, Elsevier, Springer Nature, ACS, PLOS, Sage, Taylor & Francis, and PNAS). This brief article shares examples of GenAI policies among major publishers, delves deeper into what AI disclosure involves, and offers thoughts on how existing journal policies might impact your scientific writing and teaching.
Only humans are authors
Publishers of peer-reviewed journals agree that AI tools are not co-authors; only humans can be authors of scientific articles. Authors bear the responsibility for the integrity of all content submitted. Although there is currently no sure-fire tool to detect AI-generated text and images, some publishers are using “integrity detection” tools (e.g. Proofig), while continuing to use plagiarism detection software (e.g. iThenticate).
Disclosure requirements vary among publishers
While the majority of publishers require disclosure of generative AI use for writing and images, there is variation in what ‘disclosure’ entails. For example, Elsevier journals require a section titled, “Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the manuscript preparation process,” followed by this template statement:
During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [NAME OF TOOL / SERVICE] in order to [REASON]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the published article.
Similarly, PLOS journals have AI disclosure requirements for both text and images, yet authors must provide a bit more detailed information in their disclosure statement, notably “a description of how the user evaluated the validity of the tool’s outputs.” Science takes the placement of AI disclosure one step further by requiring a statement not only in the manuscript, but in the submission cover letter as well.
Publishers may require disclosure of AI editing tools, such as Grammarly
While generative AI tools are used to create content, assistive AI tools, such as Grammarly, are used to edit existing content. What are the disclosure requirements for these tools? As always, it is important to check the specific publisher and journal guidelines.
Science guidelines state that assistive AI tools used for “Refinement, correction, editing, or formatting to improve clarity of language” are allowed with “No declaration needed.” Likewise, Sage guidelines state: “AI tools that make suggestions to improve or enhance your own work, such as tools to improve language, grammar, or structure, are considered assistive AI tools and do not require disclosure.” In contrast, Elsevier and Nature journals require disclosure of both generative and assistive AI use.
Internal tracking of your GenAI use is key for accurate disclosure
Providing accurate disclosure may not be as simple as it seems. For example, let’s say a researcher uses ChatGPT to draft notes for an upcoming talk, or uses DALL-E to generate images for a presentation. What if, months later, those outputs, or even revised excerpts of those outputs, are included in a journal article submission? A clear record of AI usage would need to have been kept in order to craft an accurate disclosure statement.
Researchers are used to keeping track of outside sources with citation management tools, but keeping track of generative AI usage requires new practices. Before outputs are edited or revised, recording the prompt that was used to generate the original output could be useful. Verifying the information in the output is also critical, including the citations generated, as ChatGPT has been reported to insert fake references in scientific writing, and a host of other AI tools can also generate false information.
Moreover, to meet the requirements of a disclosure statement, researchers should be able to provide a compelling reason for using the tool in the first place, and that rationale could be recorded prior to use. This type of real-time awareness and note-taking is likely unfamiliar territory outside of the lab; however, these practices could help mitigate the risk of accidentally including AI-generated material in a subsequent article without full disclosure.
Journal policies can inform classroom policies
In addition to influencing whether (and how) to use generative AI when preparing manuscripts, journal policies can offer teachers ideas on how to guide students’ use of AI tools in coursework. Adopting the policy of a specific journal could be one way to promote professional practices in the classroom, which could be communicated in a syllabus statement and reinforced in class discussions.
For example, in the MIT class, Nuclear Detection Laboratory (22.09/22.90), the syllabus explicitly presents the Elsevier AI use policy. Accordingly, when students submit written assignments, they are asked to include a section titled “Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the manuscript preparation process,” and follow Elsevier’s template disclosure statement.
Given the current publishing landscape, the decision of whether to use generative AI tools for scientific writing has critical implications. While there are variations in publishers’ AI policies, one key takeaway is that disclosure is paramount. As AI tools continue to advance, publishers’ policies will likely continue to adapt, which in turn, will influence how researchers choose to craft and teach scientific writing.
Additional resources
Generative AI & Your Course (MIT Teaching & Learning Lab)
How does the MIT community use AI chatbots? (MIT Writing and Communication Center)
The Cost of Generative AI (MIT AeroAstro Comm Lab)
CommKit Resources (MIT CEE Comm Lab)