03 · What You Need to Know
How AI Acknowledgment Differs From Academic Authorship and Disclosure
Why Can't an AI Tool Simply Be Listed as a Coauthor?
Academic authorship involves more than contributing text or assisting with research activities.
Under the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) framework, authors must satisfy requirements concerning scholarly contribution, manuscript drafting or critical review, final approval, and accountability.
AI systems may perform tasks resembling some scholarly contributions, but they cannot assume the professional and ethical responsibilities attached to authorship.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) similarly states that AI tools cannot be listed as authors because they cannot take responsibility for submitted work or fulfill relevant obligations involving conflicts of interest and publication agreements.
Consequently, AI systems cannot be named as research paper authors under these major publishing frameworks.
Recognizing an AI tool's contribution therefore requires a different reporting mechanism.
What Is the Purpose of an Acknowledgments Section?
Academic acknowledgments ordinarily recognize assistance that contributed to a publication without necessarily satisfying the criteria for authorship.
Depending on the journal, acknowledgments may identify technical assistance, language editing, administrative support, or other contributions.
For human contributors, some journals require permission before naming individuals in acknowledgments because acknowledgment could imply their endorsement of the work.
AI tools differ from human contributors. Naming a software system does not mean that it has approved the manuscript or agreed to be associated with the publication.
When AI assistance is acknowledged, the purpose should be to provide an accurate account of the tool's involvement rather than to imply that it deserves scholarly credit equivalent to an author.
What Does the ICMJE Recommend About Acknowledging AI?
The ICMJE distinguishes between AI assistance with writing and AI use that forms part of the research methodology.
Its recommendations indicate that authors should disclose the use of AI-assisted technologies and describe how they were used.
For writing assistance, the acknowledgment section is an appropriate reporting location under its guidance. AI use for activities such as data collection, analysis, or figure generation should be described in the methods section as applicable.
The ICMJE also emphasizes that human authors remain responsible for AI-assisted content, including its accuracy and appropriate attribution.
These recommendations do not mean that every journal following ICMJE guidance will use an identical submission form or disclosure heading. Authors should check the current instructions of the intended journal.
What Does COPE Say About Acknowledging AI?
COPE's position on authorship and AI tools excludes AI systems from the author byline while emphasizing transparency about their use.
Its guidance states that authors who use AI tools in writing, image production, or research activities should disclose the tool and explain how it was used.
COPE's position does not establish one universal acknowledgment sentence or require every form of AI use to appear in the same manuscript section.
Its central concern is that the contribution be reported appropriately and that human authors remain responsible for the submitted work.
An acknowledgment that merely names ChatGPT without explaining its role may therefore be inadequate when the journal requires a more specific disclosure.
Is Acknowledging AI the Same as Disclosing AI Use?
Not necessarily. An acknowledgment is a manuscript component, while disclosure is the act of providing information required for transparency and policy compliance.
An acknowledgment may serve as the required disclosure in some circumstances. In others, the journal may require a separate AI-use statement or methodological description.
AI acknowledgment
A statement recognizing that an AI tool assisted with a particular aspect of the work, usually outside the author byline.
AI-use disclosure
Information reported according to the applicable policy about which AI tools were used, for what purposes, and sometimes how their outputs were evaluated.
These functions may overlap, but the terms should not be treated as interchangeable in every journal.
The distinction becomes especially important when determining where AI use should be reported in a research manuscript.
When Is the Acknowledgments Section an Appropriate Location?
Acknowledgments may be appropriate when AI assistance concerns manuscript preparation rather than the underlying research methods, subject to the journal's instructions.
Examples include assistance with drafting language, improving sentence clarity, reorganizing prose, or suggesting stylistic revisions.
However, the required reporting treatment can differ according to the extent and nature of the assistance.
Some publishers distinguish ordinary AI-assisted copyediting from generative drafting that introduces substantive text. A journal may exempt certain routine language corrections from disclosure while requiring a statement for more substantial assistance.
Researchers should not assume that every grammar-checking activity requires acknowledgment or that extensive AI-generated drafting can always be handled through a brief acknowledgment.
The appropriate approach is to identify the actual activity and apply the journal's policy.
When Should AI Use Be Reported in the Methods Section Instead?
AI assistance may need to be described in the methods section when it affects how the research was conducted.
For example, a researcher might use an AI model to classify documents, assist with qualitative coding, generate analytical code, or process research data.
These activities may influence the methods or results and can therefore require information necessary for methodological transparency.
Depending on the research, relevant details may include the tool or model used, its role, the input materials, verification procedures, and limitations.
A brief acknowledgment stating that AI was used would not necessarily provide enough information for readers to evaluate the method.
The distinction between AI disclosure in the methods section and acknowledgments depends on the function AI performed, not merely the researcher's preference for one section.
Should the AI Tool Be Named in the Acknowledgment?
Where disclosure is required, identifying the tool is often appropriate and may be explicitly required by the journal.
A useful statement should describe the actual assistance rather than merely naming the software.
For example, stating that ChatGPT was used to improve the clarity of manuscript language provides more information than simply listing ChatGPT among acknowledged contributors.
Some journals may also request the provider, model version, date of use, or additional methodological details.
These requirements vary and may change over time.
Researchers should verify the journal's current instructions rather than assume that a tool name alone satisfies its disclosure requirements.
Can an AI Tool Be Thanked Like a Human Contributor?
Researchers may encounter acknowledgments that thank ChatGPT or another AI system for its assistance.
Although such wording may communicate that a tool was used, it can be less informative than a precise description of the assistance.
An AI system does not independently consent to acknowledgment, endorse the manuscript, or assume responsibility for its content.
For scholarly transparency, it is generally preferable to state what the tool did.
For example, an acknowledgment can identify the use of an AI system for language refinement without suggesting that it participated as a responsible member of the research team.
This distinction is particularly important when the manuscript involves substantive AI-generated material.
Does Acknowledging AI Protect the Researcher From Responsibility for Errors?
No. Disclosure or acknowledgment does not transfer responsibility to the AI system.
If AI generates an inaccurate literature summary, a fabricated citation, or a misleading interpretation, the human authors remain responsible for verifying and correcting the content.
The ICMJE and COPE emphasize human accountability for submitted material, including AI-assisted outputs.
Acknowledgment documents the assistance. It does not excuse inadequate verification or override the journal's research-integrity requirements.
The principle of human accountability in AI-assisted authorship applies regardless of where the disclosure appears.
Can AI Be Acknowledged if It Was Used Only for Brainstorming?
Possibly, depending on the journal's policy and the nature of the brainstorming.
Some researchers use AI to explore possible research questions, organize preliminary ideas, or consider alternative manuscript structures without incorporating generated text directly.
Whether such assistance requires disclosure is not governed by one universal rule.
A journal may require disclosure of generative AI use during manuscript preparation, while another may distinguish preliminary brainstorming from substantive drafting.
The relevant consideration is what assistance occurred and whether it falls within the applicable reporting requirement.
Researchers should not assume that the absence of copied AI-generated text automatically eliminates every disclosure obligation.
Can AI Be Acknowledged Even When Disclosure Is Not Required?
Potentially, provided the statement is accurate and consistent with the journal's instructions.
A researcher may wish to be transparent about an AI-assisted activity even where the policy does not explicitly require disclosure.
However, voluntary acknowledgment should not be used to obscure the distinction between minor language assistance and substantive AI contributions.
Nor should researchers add unnecessary declarations that conflict with the publisher's designated reporting format.
When uncertain, a concise inquiry to the editorial office may be more useful than assuming that additional acknowledgment is always preferred.
What Should an AI Acknowledgment Actually Say?
A useful acknowledgment should accurately identify the assistance and avoid overstating the AI system's role.
Where the journal requires a statement, it may be appropriate to specify the tool, its purpose, and the human verification undertaken.
Illustrative Acknowledgment
AI-Assisted Language Revision
"The authors used ChatGPT (OpenAI) to assist with language refinement and sentence clarity during manuscript preparation. The authors reviewed and revised the resulting text and remain responsible for the final manuscript."
This example is not a universal publisher-approved formula. It is suitable only where it accurately describes the work and meets the journal's specific requirements.
Researchers should not copy a statement claiming verification or revision that they did not actually perform.
The precise information required in an AI-use disclosure statement depends on the applicable policy and the nature of the assistance.
