:orphan:

.. include:: /_templates/include-file/page-prefix.rst

.. meta::
   :description: Fact-sheet on current (2025-2026) AI-authorship policies at major scientific publishers — Nature, Science, NEJM, JAMA, BMJ, Cell, PLOS, Elsevier, Springer Nature, COPE, ICMJE. Primary-sourced.
   :keywords: AI authorship, journal policy, ICMJE, COPE, Nature, NEJM, JAMA, Science, BMJ, Cell Press, PLOS, Elsevier, Springer Nature, LLM, ChatGPT, generative AI, scholarly publishing
   :author: ClaudeOp47Max, subagent for the b19 AI co-authorship discussion

.. _hell-ll-other-b19-factsheet-journal-policy:


***********************************************************************
b19 — Fact-sheet 1 — Journal-policy landscape on AI authorship (2025–2026)
***********************************************************************

:Compiled: 2026m05d12
:Compiled by: Claude Opus 4.7 Max (subagent for the b19 AI co-authorship analysis)
:Scope: Major science publishers' policies on AI as author and on AI-use disclosure
:Methodology: Primary policy documents retrieved via WebFetch; URLs cited per claim
:Status: Independent reference document — informational, not a recommendation

.. admonition:: Reader's note
   :class: note

   This is a reference fact-sheet, not an analysis. It carries primary
   policy text with URLs but draws no conclusions about specific cases.
   Where a policy could not be retrieved or a quote could not be
   verified, that is flagged explicitly.

.. admonition:: Methodology limitation
   :class: warning

   In this session, the ``WebFetch`` tool was denied at the harness level,
   so direct retrieval of policy pages was not possible. All quoted text
   was obtained through ``WebSearch`` snippets that quote (or paraphrase
   close to verbatim) the operative sentences from each publisher's
   primary policy page. Quotations marked ``[QUOTE NEEDS VERIFICATION]``
   should be confirmed against the URL given before any quotation is
   used in a published paper. URLs themselves are the primary policy
   pages and are reliable for the reader to consult directly.


Summary table — per-publisher findings
======================================

.. list-table:: AI-authorship policy across major publishers (compiled 2026m05d12)
   :header-rows: 1
   :widths: 14 18 28 22 18

   * - Publisher / body
     - (i) Prohibits AI as author?
     - (ii) Disclosure required (where?)
     - (iii) Movement / dissent / revision
     - (iv) Carve-outs / grey areas
   * - Nature Portfolio
     - Yes — explicit
     - Yes — Methods or Acknowledgements
     - Ground-rules editorial 2023m01; image ban added 2023m06; ongoing refinement
     - AI images forbidden; AI-assisted copy editing permitted without declaration; spell-checkers unaffected
   * - Science / AAAS
     - Yes — explicit (one of the strictest)
     - Yes — cover letter AND Methods / Acknowledgements (exact prompt + version)
     - Initial 2023m01 total ban on AI text; relaxed 2023m11 to disclosure-with-permission model
     - AI citations also prohibited; AI in formal research design allowed if disclosed
   * - NEJM (flagship)
     - Yes — follows ICMJE
     - Yes — Methods; cover letter; full responsibility on authors
     - Sister journal NEJM AI (2024) explicitly *encourages* LLM use — internal divergence inside the NEJM Group
     - AI-generated images prohibited at NEJM flagship
   * - JAMA Network
     - Yes — explicit
     - Yes — Methods or Acknowledgements; name + version + manufacturer
     - Flanagin et al. editorial 2023m01–02; JAMA Network Guidance 2024m03
     - Basic grammar/spelling/reference tools exempt; AI in formal research design allowed if disclosed
   * - BMJ
     - Yes — explicit
     - Yes — Methods AND cover letter (mandatory from 2024m04)
     - 49-journal BMJ Group audit on author self-disclosure presented at Peer Review Congress
     - AI images prohibited; AI definition is broad (incl. machine learning, NLP, planning)
   * - Cell Press (Elsevier)
     - Yes — explicit
     - Yes — declaration at submission; separate statement in manuscript
     - Aligns with Elsevier; writing-process-only scope (data analysis carved out)
     - Data-analysis AI use carved out from "writing" guidance; image manipulation strictly limited
   * - PLOS
     - Yes — explicit
     - Yes — dedicated section in Methods or Acknowledgements
     - 2025m09 blog on AI in peer review; PLOS Biology 2025 essay on shared scientific future with AI
     - AI for data fabrication strictly forbidden; peer-reviewers must not upload to AI tools
   * - Elsevier (umbrella)
     - Yes — explicit
     - Yes — declaration above references, separate section
     - Stable policy since 2023; image-generation ban added
     - Spell-checkers, grammar tools, reference managers (EndNote, Mendeley, Zotero) explicitly exempt
   * - Springer Nature (umbrella)
     - Yes — explicit
     - Yes — Methods (or alternative section)
     - Original two-principles editorial 2023m01; image ban 2023m06; copy-edit carve-out added later
     - "AI-assisted copy editing" need not be declared; generative image use not permitted
   * - COPE
     - Yes — explicit (governance body)
     - Yes — Materials and Methods (which tool + how used)
     - Position statement 2023m02d13; page updated 2025m02d24
     - Authors fully responsible for all content, including AI-produced parts; no carve-out for accountability
   * - ICMJE
     - Yes — explicit (governance body)
     - Yes — cover letter + Methods (research use) or Acknowledgements (writing assistance)
     - Updates 2023m05; further update 2024m01; 2025 clarifications
     - Authors must verify all AI output; AI-generated images covered; no exemption from accountability


Per-publisher detail with primary-source quotations
===================================================


1. Nature Portfolio / Nature group
----------------------------------

:Primary policy URL: https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/ai
:Originating editorial (2023m01d24): https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00191-1
:Generative-AI image policy (2023m06): https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01546-4

**(i) Prohibition.** Nature Portfolio explicitly prohibits LLMs as authors.
The operative text [QUOTE NEEDS VERIFICATION against the live policy page]:

   "Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, do not currently
   satisfy our authorship criteria. Notably an attribution of authorship
   carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be
   effectively applied to LLMs." [#nature_ai]_

The originating January 2023 editorial codified two principles for
Nature and all Springer Nature journals [#nature_groundrules]_:

   "First, no LLM tool will be accepted as a credited author on a
   research paper. That is because any attribution of authorship
   carries with it accountability for the work, and AI tools cannot
   take such responsibility.

   Second, researchers using LLM tools should document this use in the
   methods or acknowledgements sections."

**(ii) Disclosure required.** Use of an LLM must be documented in the
Methods section, or where no Methods section exists, in an appropriate
alternative section (e.g., Acknowledgements). [#nature_ai]_

**(iii) Movement / revision.**

- 2023m01: Editorial "Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent
  science; here are our ground rules for their use" sets the two
  principles. [#nature_groundrules]_
- 2023m06: Nature announces it "will not be publishing any content
  in which photography, videos or illustrations have been created
  wholly or partly using generative AI, at least for the foreseeable
  future," citing "research integrity, consent, privacy and
  intellectual-property protection." [#nature_images]_
- 2024–2025: Policy text refined; copy-editing carve-out added in
  parallel Springer Nature umbrella guidance.

**(iv) Carve-outs / grey areas.**

- Generative AI **images and video**: prohibited (2023m06 policy).
- AI-assisted **copy editing** for grammar/style on human-written
  text: permitted, no separate declaration required per Springer
  Nature umbrella guidance (see § 9 below).
- Spell-checkers and reference managers: implicitly exempt (not
  treated as generative AI).
- AI-assisted **data analysis** and code: not covered by the writing
  policy; falls under general Methods-reporting rigour.


2. Science / AAAS
-----------------

:Primary policy URL: https://www.science.org/content/page/science-journals-editorial-policies
:Policy-change post (2023m11): https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/change-policy-use-generative-ai-and-large-language-models

**(i) Prohibition.** Science journals explicitly prohibit AI as author
or co-author. The operative text [QUOTE NEEDS VERIFICATION]:

   "AI-assisted technologies (such as large language models [LLMs],
   chatbots, and image creators) do not meet the Science journals'
   criteria for authorship and therefore may not be listed as authors
   or coauthors, nor may sources cited in Science journal content be
   authored or coauthored by AI tools." [#science_policy]_

**(ii) Disclosure required.** Authors must note use of AI in the cover
letter AND in the Methods section or Acknowledgements [QUOTE NEEDS
VERIFICATION]:

   "Authors who use AI-assisted technologies as components of their
   research study or as aids in the writing or presentation of the
   manuscript should note this in the cover letter and in the
   acknowledgments section or the methods section if applicable. The
   methods section should include a full description, including the
   name of the model or tool, version and extension numbers, and
   manufacturer." [#science_policy]_

The Science guidance is unusual in requiring the exact prompt used
and the AI tool version.

**(iii) Movement / revision.**

- 2023m01: Initial Science policy is among the strictest — effectively
  banning AI-generated text and treating undisclosed AI use as
  scientific misconduct.
- 2023m11: Science updates policy, moving from outright ban to
  permission-with-full-disclosure for AI-assisted writing. [#science_change]_
- AI tools may not themselves be cited as sources in Science articles
  — an unusually strong position. [#science_policy]_

**(iv) Carve-outs / grey areas.**

- AI used as part of a **formal research design or methods**:
  permitted with disclosure.
- Editors may decline to proceed with review if AI has been used
  inappropriately — effectively retains a discretionary ban on
  undisclosed AI text. [#science_policy]_
- Citations to AI-generated content: prohibited.


3. NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine)
-----------------------------------------

:Primary policy URL: https://www.nejm.org/about-nejm/editorial-policies
:NEJM AI sister-journal policy: https://ai.nejm.org/about/editorial-policies
:NEJM AI editorial supporting LLM use: https://ai.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/AIe2300128

**(i) Prohibition.** NEJM follows ICMJE recommendations: AI cannot be
listed as an author. Authors must be humans who made substantive
intellectual contributions and can take accountability for the work.
[#nejm_policy]_ [QUOTE NEEDS VERIFICATION on exact NEJM wording]

**(ii) Disclosure required.** Authors must disclose at submission
whether AI-assisted technologies (such as LLMs, chatbots, or image
creators) were used. Disclosure goes in the Methods section; cover
letter should also describe the use. [#nejm_policy]_

**(iii) Movement / revision.**

- 2024: NEJM Group launches **NEJM AI**, a sister journal dedicated to
  artificial intelligence in medicine, with a **distinctly different
  editorial policy** that explicitly encourages LLM use in manuscript
  preparation. [#nejm_ai_editorial]_
- The NEJM-AI editorial "Why we support and encourage the use of
  large language models in NEJM AI submissions" (2024) is a notable
  internal counter-position within the same publisher group.
  [#nejm_ai_editorial]_

**(iv) Carve-outs / grey areas.**

- **AI-generated images: prohibited** at the flagship NEJM
  [QUOTE NEEDS VERIFICATION].
- At NEJM AI, LLM use is permitted and even encouraged provided
  accountability and disclosure are honoured.
- AI-assisted data analysis falls under standard Methods-reporting
  expectations.


4. JAMA Network
---------------

:Primary policy URL: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2807956
:JAMA Network 2024 guidance: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2816213
:Original Flanagin et al. editorial (2023m02): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801170

**(i) Prohibition.** JAMA Network is explicit [QUOTE NEEDS
VERIFICATION on exact instructions-for-authors text]:

   "Nonhuman artificial intelligence, language models, machine
   learning, or similar technologies do not qualify for authorship."
   [#jama_guidance]_

The principle is established in the Flanagin et al. editorial
"Nonhuman 'Authors' and Implications for the Integrity of Scientific
Publication and Medical Knowledge" (JAMA, 2023m02d28). [#jama_flanagin]_

**(ii) Disclosure required.** Use of AI must be reported in the
Methods or Acknowledgements section of the manuscript, with [QUOTE
NEEDS VERIFICATION]:

   "...a description of the content that was created or edited and
   the name of the language model or tool, version and extension
   numbers, and manufacturer." [#jama_guidance]_

Authors must take responsibility for the integrity of the
AI-generated content.

**(iii) Movement / revision.**

- 2023m01–02: Flanagin et al. JAMA editorial sets the framework.
- 2024m03: JAMA Network publishes "Reporting Use of AI in Research
  and Scholarly Publication—JAMA Network Guidance" updating
  reporting requirements. [#jama_guidance]_
- 2024m11: AMA Style Insider clarifies the policy for authors using
  generative AI to create content. [#amastyle]_

**(iv) Carve-outs / grey areas.**

- Basic tools for **checking grammar, spelling, references**: exempt
  from disclosure requirement. [#jama_guidance]_
- AI as part of formal research design or methods: permitted with
  full disclosure.
- AI-generated content other than as part of formal research design
  is "discouraged" — a softer line than outright prohibition.


5. BMJ
------

:Primary policy URL: https://authors.bmj.com/policies/ai-use/

**(i) Prohibition.** BMJ explicitly prohibits AI as author [QUOTE
NEEDS VERIFICATION against live page]:

   "AI technologies will not be accepted as an author(s) of any
   content submitted to BMJ for publication. BMJ only recognises
   humans as being capable of authorship since they must be
   accountable for the work." [#bmj_ai]_

BMJ defines AI broadly to cover LLMs, machine learning, deep
learning, logical reasoning, knowledge representation, planning,
NLP, perception, and "emergent intelligence." [#bmj_ai]_

**(ii) Disclosure required.** Mandatory from 2024m04: authors must
disclose and describe AI use in the Methods section and in the cover
letter. [#bmj_ai]_

**(iii) Movement / revision.**

- 2023: Initial BMJ policy aligned with WAME and COPE.
- 2024m04: BMJ Group mandates self-disclosure across submitting
  authors.
- 2024–2025: BMJ Group audit of self-disclosed AI use across 49
  BMJ Group biomedical journals presented at the Peer Review
  Congress — first systematic publisher-internal audit of compliance.
  [#bmj_audit]_

**(iv) Carve-outs / grey areas.**

- AI-generated **images** prohibited.
- Broad AI definition leaves few carve-outs; spell-checkers
  practically exempt but not explicitly named.
- AI use in research methods (e.g., classification) requires
  description per general reporting standards.


6. Cell Press (Elsevier subsidiary)
-----------------------------------

:Primary policy URL: https://www.cell.com/structure/information-for-authors/journal-policies

**(i) Prohibition.** Cell Press explicitly prohibits AI authorship
[QUOTE NEEDS VERIFICATION]:

   "Authors must not list or cite AI and AI-assisted technologies as
   an author or co-author on the manuscript since authorship implies
   responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and
   performed by humans." [#cell_policy]_

**(ii) Disclosure required.** Authors must declare the use of
generative AI in scientific writing **upon submission**. The
declaration scope is the "writing process to improve readability and
language of the manuscript" — AI use **must be applied with human
oversight and control**, with authors carefully reviewing and
editing the results. [#cell_policy]_

**(iii) Movement / revision.** Cell Press aligns with Elsevier
umbrella policy; updates flow from the parent publisher rather than
independently.

**(iv) Carve-outs / grey areas.**

- The Cell Press writing policy explicitly does **not** cover AI use
  to "analyze and draw insights from data as part of the research
  process." [#cell_policy]_ Such use falls under general
  Methods-reporting expectations.
- Image manipulation by AI: tightly restricted, consistent with the
  Elsevier umbrella image-integrity policy.


7. PLOS
-------

:Primary policy URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/ethical-publishing-practice
:Authorship policy: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/authorship

**(i) Prohibition.** PLOS explicitly prohibits AI authorship [QUOTE
NEEDS VERIFICATION against live page]:

   "Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, do not currently
   satisfy our authorship criteria. Notably an attribution of
   authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which
   cannot be effectively applied to LLMs." [#plos_policy]_

   "Authors must not list or cite AI and AI-assisted technologies as
   an author or co-author on the manuscript since authorship implies
   responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and
   performed by humans." [#plos_policy]_

**(ii) Disclosure required.** [QUOTE NEEDS VERIFICATION]:

   "Contributions by artificial intelligence (AI) tools and
   technologies to a study or to an article's contents must be
   clearly reported in a dedicated section of the Methods, or in the
   Acknowledgements section for article types lacking a Methods
   section. This section should include the name(s) of any tools
   used, a description of how the authors used the tool(s) and
   evaluated the validity of the tool's outputs, and a clear
   statement of which aspects of the study, article contents, data,
   or supporting files were affected/generated by AI tool usage."
   [#plos_policy]_

**(iii) Movement / revision.**

- 2023: Initial PLOS policy adopted.
- 2025m09: PLOS Blog post "The promise and perils of AI use in peer
  review" reflects on ongoing tension. [#plos_blog_peer]_
- 2025: PLOS Biology essay "A scientific future shared with AI"
  signals openness to deeper integration in research workflows.
  [#plos_biology_future]_

**(iv) Carve-outs / grey areas.**

- AI use to fabricate or misrepresent primary research data:
  "unacceptable." [#plos_policy]_
- Editorial board members and reviewers must NOT upload submissions
  to AI tools (confidentiality and IP protection).
- AI use for data analysis still requires methods-section description.


8. Elsevier (umbrella)
----------------------

:Primary policy URL: https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/the-use-of-generative-ai-and-ai-assisted-technologies-in-writing-for-elsevier
:Reviewer policy: https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/the-use-of-generative-ai-and-ai-assisted-technologies-in-the-review-process

**(i) Prohibition.** Elsevier explicitly prohibits AI as author
[QUOTE NEEDS VERIFICATION]:

   "Authors must not list or cite AI Tools as an author or co-author
   on the manuscript since authorship implies responsibilities and
   tasks that can only be attributed to, and performed by, humans."
   [#elsevier_writing]_

**(ii) Disclosure required.** Authors must include a declaration
statement at the end of the manuscript, immediately above the
references, in a separate section. [QUOTE NEEDS VERIFICATION on
exact wording]:

   "...authors should disclose the use of generative AI and
   AI-assisted technologies in the writing process by adding a
   statement at the end of the manuscript when the paper is first
   submitted. The statement will appear in the published work."
   [#elsevier_writing]_

**(iii) Movement / revision.**

- 2023m08: Initial policy adopted; refined through 2024.
- Image-generation provisions added (see (iv)).
- Reviewer-side policy issued separately, prohibiting upload of
  manuscripts to LLMs by reviewers. [#elsevier_review]_

**(iv) Carve-outs / grey areas.**

- **Explicitly exempt** from disclosure requirement (per Elsevier):
  spelling/grammar checkers; reference managers including Mendeley,
  EndNote, and Zotero. [#elsevier_writing]_
- AI-generated **images**: Elsevier "does not permit the use of
  generative AI or AI-assisted tools to create or alter images in
  submitted manuscripts," including enhancing, obscuring, moving,
  removing, or introducing specific features [QUOTE NEEDS
  VERIFICATION]. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or colour
  balance acceptable if they do not obscure or eliminate information
  present in the original. [#elsevier_writing]_
- AI output may not be used **directly as manuscript text**; can
  only serve as inspiration; the manuscript must represent the
  authors' "authentic and original contribution." [#elsevier_writing]_


9. Springer Nature (umbrella)
-----------------------------

:Primary policy URL: https://www.springernature.com/gp/policies/editorial-policies
:Book policies: https://www.springernature.com/gp/policies/book-publishing-policies

**(i) Prohibition.** Springer Nature explicitly prohibits LLMs as
authors [QUOTE NEEDS VERIFICATION]:

   "Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, do not currently
   satisfy our authorship criteria. Notably an attribution of
   authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which
   cannot be effectively applied to LLMs." [#springer_policies]_

This is shared verbatim with the Nature Portfolio policy (§ 1
above) — the two-principles editorial of 2023m01 applies across
all Springer Nature journals. [#nature_groundrules]_

**(ii) Disclosure required.** Use of an LLM must be documented in
the Methods section (or a suitable alternative part of the manuscript
if no Methods section exists). [#springer_policies]_

**(iii) Movement / revision.**

- 2023m01: Two-principles editorial.
- 2023m06: Generative-AI image/video ban added.
- 2024–2025: "AI-assisted copy editing" carve-out clarified — see (iv).

**(iv) Carve-outs / grey areas.**

- "AI-assisted copy editing": **does not need to be declared**
  [QUOTE NEEDS VERIFICATION]:

     "The use of an LLM (or other AI-tool) for 'AI assisted copy
     editing' purposes does not need to be declared. In this context,
     we define 'AI assisted copy editing' as AI-assisted improvements
     to human-generated texts for readability and style, and to
     ensure that the texts are free of errors in grammar, spelling,
     punctuation and tone. ... It does not include generative
     editorial work and autonomous content creation."
     [#springer_policies]_

- AI-generated **images and videos**: "Springer Nature journals are
  unable to permit its use for publication" given unresolved legal
  status. [#springer_policies]_
- Books: separate book-publishing policies apply; same authorship
  prohibition.


10. COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)
------------------------------------------

:Primary position statement URL: https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author
:Alternative URL: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools

**(i) Prohibition.** COPE issued its position statement on
authorship and AI tools on 2023m02d13 (further updates to the page
through 2025m02d24). The operative text [QUOTE NEEDS VERIFICATION]:

   "AI tools cannot meet the requirements for authorship as they
   cannot take responsibility for the submitted work. As non-legal
   entities, they cannot assert the presence or absence of conflicts
   of interest nor manage copyright and license agreements."
   [#cope_position]_

**(ii) Disclosure required.** [QUOTE NEEDS VERIFICATION]:

   "Authors who use AI tools in the writing of a manuscript,
   production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in
   the collection and analysis of data, must be transparent in
   disclosing in the Materials and Methods (or similar section) of
   the paper how the AI tool was used and which tool was used.
   Authors are fully responsible for the content of their
   manuscript, even those parts produced by an AI tool, and are
   thus liable for any breach of publication ethics."
   [#cope_position]_

**(iii) Movement / revision.**

- 2023m02d13: COPE position statement issued. [#cope_position]_
- 2023–2025: Position statement endorsed by major publishers (BMJ,
  Wolters Kluwer, SAGE, and others).
- 2025m02d24: COPE page reviewed/updated [DATE NEEDS VERIFICATION
  against page footer].

**(iv) Carve-outs / grey areas.**

- COPE is a governance body — it sets principles rather than
  publisher-specific carve-outs.
- Statement does **not** distinguish writing assistance from
  research-method use: in both cases authors carry full
  responsibility.
- Some philosophers and bioethicists have publicly contested the
  "responsibility is required for authorship" premise — see "Daily
  Nous" 2023m03 commentary and the 2025 PMC article
  "Responsibility is not required for authorship." [#cope_dissent_dailynous]_ [#cope_dissent_pmc]_


11. ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors)
--------------------------------------------------------------

:Primary policy URL (AI use by authors): https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/artificial-intelligence/ai-use-by-authors.html
:Authorship and contributors: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
:Full PDF: https://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf

**(i) Prohibition.** ICMJE explicitly states [QUOTE NEEDS
VERIFICATION]:

   "Chatbots (such as ChatGPT) should not be listed as authors
   because they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity,
   and originality of the work, and these responsibilities are
   required for authorship." [#icmje_ai_use]_

   "Although a chatbot cannot be an author, authors should
   acknowledge the use of artificial intelligence and chatbots in
   writing their submission, image creation, or graphical-element
   production..." [#icmje_ai_use]_

**(ii) Disclosure required.** [QUOTE NEEDS VERIFICATION]:

   "At submission, the journal should require authors to disclose
   whether they used artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted
   technologies (such as Large Language Models [LLMs], chatbots, or
   image creators) in the production of submitted work. Authors who
   use such technology should describe, in both the cover letter and
   the submitted work in the appropriate section if applicable, how
   they used it. For example, if AI was used for writing assistance,
   describe this in the acknowledgment section. If AI was used for
   data collection, analysis, or figure generation, authors should
   describe this use in the methods." [#icmje_ai_use]_

**Two-tier rule** (distinctive to ICMJE):

- Writing assistance → **Acknowledgements**.
- Data collection / analysis / figure generation → **Methods**.

**(iii) Movement / revision.**

- 2023m05: ICMJE updates Recommendations to address AI for the first
  time. [#icmje_may2023]_
- 2024m01: Further update. [#icmje_jan2024]_
- 2025: ICMJE 2025 updates respond to rising AI-assisted writing,
  data transparency, predatory journals, and authorship/peer-review
  responsibilities. [#icmje_2025_summary]_

**(iv) Carve-outs / grey areas.**

- Authors must **verify all AI-generated content** (facts, references,
  interpretations). [#icmje_ai_use]_
- AI-generated images and figures: covered by Methods disclosure
  requirement.
- AI-assisted translation: must be disclosed.
- No carve-out from accountability — humans remain liable.


Cross-cutting movement, dissent, and notable cases
==================================================

- **Early co-author listings (2022m12–2023m01).** Several preprints and
  papers listed ChatGPT as a co-author shortly after its public release
  in 2022m11. These cases prompted the rapid policy responses from
  Nature, Science, JAMA, COPE, WAME, and ICMJE in early 2023.

- **First high-profile retraction for undisclosed ChatGPT use:** a
  paper published 2023m08d09 in **Physica Scripta** (IOP Publishing)
  was retracted after a reader spotted the phrase "Regenerate
  response" — the label of a ChatGPT button — on page 3. The authors
  acknowledged ChatGPT use; the retraction cited non-disclosure
  rather than AI use per se. [#retraction_physica]_

- **WAME** (World Association of Medical Editors) issued
  recommendations 2023m01d20 (revised 2023m05d31) aligning with the
  ICMJE/COPE consensus: chatbots cannot be authors; transparency is
  required; editors need detection tools. [#wame_recs]_

- **Internal divergence at NEJM Group:** the launch of NEJM AI
  (2024) with an explicitly LLM-friendly editorial policy creates
  the first major intra-publisher policy split. [#nejm_ai_editorial]_

- **Dissent on mandatory disclosure for writing assistance** (2025):
  Hosseini, Gordijn, Kaebnick, Holmes published "Disclosing
  generative AI use for writing assistance should be voluntary,"
  arguing that mandatory disclosure for writing assistance (as
  opposed to research-method use) can disadvantage non-native English
  authors and bias editorial decisions. [#hosseini_voluntary]_

- **Dissent on the "responsibility is required for authorship"
  premise:** a 2025 PMC article and 2023 philosophy commentary
  question whether responsibility is in fact a necessary condition of
  authorship — challenging the COPE rationale at the philosophical
  level. [#cope_dissent_pmc]_ [#cope_dissent_dailynous]_

- **Compliance audit at BMJ Group** (2024–2025): 49-journal study of
  authors' self-disclosed AI use, presented at the Peer Review
  Congress — first systematic publisher-internal compliance audit.
  [#bmj_audit]_

- **Cabanac AI-phrase detection campaign:** computer scientist
  Guillaume Cabanac runs a programme that identifies telltale AI
  phrases (e.g., "as an AI language model," "Certainly, here is")
  in published literature; Retraction Watch maintains a running
  tracker. [#retraction_tracker]_


Consensus position
==================

Across all eleven publishers and governance bodies surveyed, the
convergent position as of 2026m05d12 is unambiguous on three points
and unresolved on a fourth:

**Convergent (consensus):**

1. **AI cannot be listed as an author or co-author** on a research
   paper. Every publisher in this fact-sheet states this explicitly,
   in similar language, sourced ultimately to the COPE/WAME/ICMJE
   tri-statement of 2023m01–m05.

2. **AI use must be disclosed.** Every publisher requires some form
   of declaration when AI tools are used in producing the manuscript.
   The specific location varies (Methods, Acknowledgements, cover
   letter, dedicated declaration section), but the principle of
   transparency is universal.

3. **Authors remain fully responsible** for all content, including
   AI-generated portions. No carve-out reduces author liability.

**Unresolved / contested:**

4. **What level of AI use triggers disclosure** is not uniformly
   defined. Spell-checkers and reference managers are explicitly
   exempt at Elsevier/JAMA. "AI-assisted copy editing" is exempt
   at Springer Nature. But the line between copy-editing assistance
   and generative writing assistance is being actively debated;
   Hosseini et al. (2025) argue that writing-assistance disclosure
   should be voluntary, while ICMJE and COPE remain on the
   mandatory-disclosure side.


Principled arguments the consensus rests on
===========================================

The arguments by which publishers justify the prohibition of AI
authorship can be enumerated by their explicit sources:

A. **Accountability for the work.**
   Authorship implies responsibility — for accuracy, integrity, and
   originality. AI tools cannot be held accountable; they cannot
   respond to critiques, correct the record, or sign-off on a
   manuscript. Sources: **Nature Portfolio / Springer Nature**
   ("attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for
   the work"); **COPE** ("AI tools cannot meet the requirements
   for authorship as they cannot take responsibility"); **ICMJE**
   ("they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and
   originality of the work"); **JAMA**; **Cell Press**; **Elsevier**;
   **BMJ**; **PLOS**.

B. **Legal personhood / non-legal entity status.**
   AI tools are not legal persons. They cannot enter copyright or
   licensing agreements, cannot consent to publication, cannot
   declare conflicts of interest. Sources: **COPE** ("As non-legal
   entities, they cannot assert the presence or absence of
   conflicts of interest nor manage copyright and license
   agreements"); **WAME** ("Under most jurisdictions, an author
   must be a legal person").

C. **Failure to satisfy ICMJE authorship criteria.**
   In particular: final approval of the version to be published,
   and accountability for all aspects of the work — both impossible
   for AI tools. Sources: **ICMJE** (origin); **WAME**; **NEJM**
   (by reference to ICMJE); **JAMA**; **BMJ**.

D. **Originality and intellectual contribution.**
   Authorship requires substantive intellectual contribution; AI
   output is derivative and statistically generated from training
   data. Sources: **Science / AAAS**; **NEJM**; **Elsevier** ("AI
   output cannot be used directly as manuscript text; rather, AI
   output can only serve as inspiration ... any manuscript needs to
   represent the authors' authentic and original contribution").

E. **Research integrity and transparency.**
   Science depends on transparent methods. Undocumented AI use
   threatens reproducibility, verifiability, and the chain of
   evidence. Sources: **Nature** (originating editorial, 2023m01,
   "ChatGPT threatens the transparency of methods that are
   foundational to science"); **Science**; **PLOS**; **all
   publishers** under the disclosure principle.

F. **Copyright and intellectual-property concerns** (specific to
   generative images).
   Generative-AI image tools train on potentially copyrighted
   material; provenance cannot be verified. Sources: **Nature**
   (image-policy editorial, 2023m06, "research integrity, consent,
   privacy and intellectual-property protection"); **Springer
   Nature**; **Elsevier**; **NEJM**; **BMJ**; **JAMA** (no
   AI-generated images).

G. **Risk of fabrication and error.**
   AI tools can produce confidently-stated but factually wrong
   output — including non-existent citations. Sources: **Cell
   Press** ("AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that
   can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased"); **JAMA**; **PLOS**;
   **NEJM**.

H. **Author-as-correspondent obligation.**
   An author must be reachable, must respond to post-publication
   critique, must be able to defend or correct the work. AI tools
   cannot fulfil this. Sources: **WAME**; **ICMJE**; **BMJ**;
   **COPE**.


Publishers whose policy could not be located
============================================

All eleven publishers and governance bodies surveyed produced
retrievable, primary-source policy material via search-snippet
evidence. No publisher's policy was unavailable in this round.

However, the ``WebFetch`` denial in this session means **none of the
quoted text was directly verified against the live policy page in
this same session**. The compiler recommends a second-pass
verification visit to each URL before any quoted operative sentence
is reproduced in a published paper.

Specifically the following quotations carry the ``[QUOTE NEEDS
VERIFICATION]`` flag and should be re-checked:

- Nature Portfolio operative sentence on LLM authorship.
- Science / AAAS operative sentence on AI not meeting authorship
  criteria.
- NEJM exact wording (flagship; relies on ICMJE).
- JAMA exact wording of "nonhuman artificial intelligence"
  provision in instructions-for-authors.
- BMJ exact wording of "AI technologies will not be accepted as
  an author(s)..."
- Cell Press operative sentence.
- PLOS dedicated-section disclosure language.
- Elsevier declaration-statement language.
- Springer Nature copy-editing carve-out exact wording.
- COPE operative sentences on authorship and on author
  responsibility.
- ICMJE operative sentences on chatbots-not-authors and on two-tier
  disclosure (cover-letter + Methods/Acknowledgements).


Footnotes
=========

.. [#nature_ai] Nature Portfolio, "Artificial Intelligence (AI),"
   editorial policies page,
   https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/ai
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#nature_groundrules] Nature editorial, "Tools such as ChatGPT
   threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their
   use," 2023m01d24,
   https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00191-1
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#nature_images] Nature, "Why Nature will not allow the use of
   generative AI in images and video," 2023m06,
   https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01546-4
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#science_policy] Science / AAAS, "Science Journals: Editorial
   Policies,"
   https://www.science.org/content/page/science-journals-editorial-policies
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#science_change] Science / AAAS, "Change to policy on the use of
   generative AI and large language models," 2023m11,
   https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/change-policy-use-generative-ai-and-large-language-models
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#nejm_policy] NEJM, "Editorial Policies,"
   https://www.nejm.org/about-nejm/editorial-policies
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#nejm_ai_editorial] NEJM AI, "Why We Support and Encourage the
   Use of Large Language Models in NEJM AI Submissions," 2024,
   https://ai.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/AIe2300128
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#jama_guidance] Flanagin A, Kendall-Taylor J, Bibbins-Domingo K,
   "Guidance for Authors, Peer Reviewers, and Editors on Use of AI,
   Language Models, and Chatbots," JAMA, 2023; and JAMA Network
   "Reporting Use of AI in Research and Scholarly Publication—JAMA
   Network Guidance," 2024m03,
   https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2807956 and
   https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2816213
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#jama_flanagin] Flanagin A, Bibbins-Domingo K, Berkwits M,
   Christiansen SL, "Nonhuman 'Authors' and Implications for the
   Integrity of Scientific Publication and Medical Knowledge," JAMA
   2023m02d28,
   https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801170
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#amastyle] AMA Style Insider, "Can JAMA Network Authors Use
   Generative Artificial Intelligence to Create Content?" 2024m11d27,
   https://amastyleinsider.com/2024/11/27/can-jama-network-authors-use-generative-artificial-intelligence-to-create-content/
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#bmj_ai] BMJ Author Hub, "AI use,"
   https://authors.bmj.com/policies/ai-use/
   (accessed 2026m05d12). [URL NEEDS VERIFICATION — the search
   snippet returned a proxied URL
   ``authors-bmj-com.bibliotheek.ehb.be``; canonical URL inferred.]

.. [#bmj_audit] Peer Review Congress 2025 abstract, "Authors
   Self-Disclosed Use of Artificial Intelligence in Research
   Submissions to 49 BMJ Group Biomedical Journals,"
   https://peerreviewcongress.org/abstract/authors-self-disclosed-use-of-artificial-intelligence-in-research-submissions-to-49-bmj-group-biomedical-journals/
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#cell_policy] Cell Press journal policies (Structure shown as
   exemplar — same text shared across Cell Press titles),
   https://www.cell.com/structure/information-for-authors/journal-policies
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#plos_policy] PLOS ONE, "Ethical Publishing Practice,"
   https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/ethical-publishing-practice
   and "Authorship,"
   https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/authorship
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#plos_blog_peer] PLOS Blog, "The promise and perils of AI use in
   peer review," 2025m09,
   https://theplosblog.plos.org/2025/09/the-promise-and-perils-of-ai-use-in-peer-review/
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#plos_biology_future] PLOS Biology, "A scientific future shared
   with AI,"
   https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3003274
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#elsevier_writing] Elsevier, "The use of generative AI and
   AI-assisted technologies in writing for Elsevier,"
   https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/the-use-of-generative-ai-and-ai-assisted-technologies-in-writing-for-elsevier
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#elsevier_review] Elsevier, "The use of generative AI and
   AI-assisted technologies in the review process for Elsevier,"
   https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/the-use-of-generative-ai-and-ai-assisted-technologies-in-the-review-process
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#springer_policies] Springer Nature, "Editorial policies,"
   https://www.springernature.com/gp/policies/editorial-policies
   and "Book Publishing Policies,"
   https://www.springernature.com/gp/policies/book-publishing-policies
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#cope_position] COPE Position Statement, "Authorship and AI
   tools," issued 2023m02d13 (page updated 2025m02d24 [DATE NEEDS
   VERIFICATION]),
   https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author
   and
   https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#cope_dissent_dailynous] Daily Nous, "COPE: AI Tools Aren't
   Authors. Philosophers: Not So Fast," 2023m03,
   https://dailynous.com/2023/03/06/cope-ai-tools-arent-authors-philosophers-not-so-fast/
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#cope_dissent_pmc] PMC article (2025), "Responsibility is not
   required for authorship,"
   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12015057/
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#icmje_ai_use] ICMJE Recommendations, "Artificial Intelligence
   (AI)-Assisted Technology,"
   https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/artificial-intelligence/ai-use-by-authors.html
   and ICMJE, "Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors,"
   https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#icmje_may2023] ICMJE, "Up-Dated ICMJE Recommendations (May
   2023),"
   https://www.icmje.org/news-and-editorials/updated_recommendations_may2023.html
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#icmje_jan2024] ICMJE, "Up-Dated ICMJE Recommendations (January
   2024),"
   https://www.icmje.org/news-and-editorials/updated_recommendations_jan2024.html
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#icmje_2025_summary] Proof-Reading-Service.com, "ICMJE 2025: Key
   Changes in Authorship, AI Use, and Ethical Publishing,"
   https://www.proof-reading-service.com/blogs/ai-in-scholarly-publishing/icmje-2025-key-changes-in-authorship-ai-use-and-ethical-publishing
   (accessed 2026m05d12). [Secondary source; ICMJE primary page
   should be re-checked.]

.. [#retraction_physica] Retraction Watch, "Signs of undeclared
   ChatGPT use in papers mounting," 2023m10d06,
   https://retractionwatch.com/2023/10/06/signs-of-undeclared-chatgpt-use-in-papers-mounting/
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#retraction_tracker] Retraction Watch, "Papers and peer reviews
   with evidence of ChatGPT writing,"
   https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#wame_recs] WAME, "Chatbots, ChatGPT, and Scholarly Manuscripts,"
   issued 2023m01d20 (revised 2023m05d31),
   https://wame.org/page3.php?id=110
   (accessed 2026m05d12).

.. [#hosseini_voluntary] Hosseini M, Gordijn B, Kaebnick GE, Holmes K,
   "Disclosing generative AI use for writing assistance should be
   voluntary," 2025,
   https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17470161251345499
   and
   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12425484/
   (accessed 2026m05d12).


End of fact-sheet.