03 · What You Need to Know
When AI Assistance Belongs in Acknowledgments and When It Does Not
Why Are Acknowledgments Used to Report Writing Assistance?
Academic acknowledgments traditionally recognize contributions that supported a publication without qualifying the contributor for authorship.
Depending on the journal, these may include language editing, technical assistance, administrative support, or other help during manuscript preparation.
AI-assisted writing can fit within this reporting function because the tool contributes to the preparation of the manuscript without becoming an accountable author.
However, acknowledging an AI tool is not equivalent to thanking a human collaborator. The tool does not approve the research, endorse the conclusions, or assume responsibility for the published work.
The acknowledgment should therefore describe the assistance accurately rather than imply that the AI system participated as a member of the author group.
What Does the ICMJE Require for AI-Assisted Writing?
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides explicit guidance on reporting AI-assisted technologies.
Its recommendations state that authors should disclose whether AI-assisted technologies were used in producing submitted work. Authors should describe how they used those technologies in both the cover letter and the submitted manuscript, in the appropriate section where applicable.
For AI writing assistance, the ICMJE identifies the acknowledgment section as the reporting location.
For AI used in data collection, analysis, or figure generation, it directs authors toward the methods section.
The ICMJE also states that AI systems should not be listed as authors because they cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work.
These recommendations are particularly relevant to medical journals, although journals outside medicine may also adopt them.
Authors should verify whether their intended journal follows ICMJE guidance and whether its own instructions introduce additional requirements.
Does COPE Require AI Assistance to Be Reported in Acknowledgments?
Not specifically. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) takes a somewhat different approach to the reporting location.
COPE's position on authorship and AI tools states that authors using AI for manuscript writing, image or graphical production, or data collection and analysis must transparently disclose which tool was used and how it was used in the materials and methods section or an equivalent section.
This differs from the ICMJE's explicit recommendation to place writing assistance in acknowledgments.
The two positions share an emphasis on transparency and human accountability, but their instructions should not be presented as identical.
COPE's position also does not make AI eligible for authorship. The human authors remain responsible for the manuscript, including AI-generated material.
When a journal cites COPE, authors should examine its own instructions to determine how the position has been implemented.
What Does Springer Nature Require?
Springer Nature provides another example of why reporting locations cannot be generalized across publishers.
Its official AI guidance distinguishes among different forms of assistance and provides specific instructions for declaring generative AI use.
The guidance identifies the introduction or acknowledgments as possible locations for declaring generative AI use in manuscripts. It also contains publication-specific instructions concerning methodological reporting and AI-assisted copyediting.
Importantly, Springer Nature distinguishes routine AI-assisted copyediting from more substantive generative assistance. Its guidance indicates that certain copyediting activities do not require declaration, while other uses require transparency and human verification.
Because its guidance contains distinctions based on the activity and publication context, authors should consult the current detailed policy and journal instructions rather than relying on a general summary.
The differences among ICMJE, COPE, and Springer Nature demonstrate that the location of an AI declaration is a policy matter, not a universal convention.
How Do Major Publishing Positions Compare?
| Authority |
Approach to AI Reporting |
Implication for Acknowledgments |
| ICMJE |
Disclose AI use in the cover letter and appropriate manuscript section; distinguish writing assistance from methodological use. |
Writing assistance should be reported in acknowledgments. |
| COPE |
Disclose the tool and its use in materials and methods or an equivalent section. |
Acknowledgments alone are not prescribed as the universal location. |
| Springer Nature |
Apply its AI guidance according to the nature of assistance and publication requirements. |
Introduction or acknowledgments may be appropriate for some declarations; copyediting and methodological uses require policy-specific treatment. |
This comparison reflects the cited official guidance, not a guarantee that every journal associated with these organizations uses the same submission fields.
The most authoritative operational instruction for an individual submission is the current policy of the journal receiving the manuscript.
Does AI-Assisted Grammar Correction Need an Acknowledgment?
Not universally.
Some publishers distinguish routine spelling, grammar, and punctuation correction from generative assistance that introduces substantive wording or changes the intellectual content of the manuscript.
For example, Springer Nature's guidance includes an exception for AI-assisted copyediting under its defined conditions.
Other journals may require disclosure of AI writing assistance more broadly.
The researcher should consider whether the tool merely corrected language or contributed substantially to drafting, restructuring, or interpreting the work.
The distinction may not always be clear. A request to correct grammar can result in extensive rewriting that changes the meaning of technical statements.
Whether AI-assisted grammar correction requires disclosure should therefore be determined from the actual activity and the journal's policy.
What If AI Rewrote Several Paragraphs?
Substantive rewriting deserves closer attention than minor correction of spelling or punctuation.
An AI system may reorganize arguments, introduce new expressions, alter emphasis, or add statements that were not present in the original draft.
Even when the researcher subsequently edits the output, the AI may have contributed meaningfully to the manuscript's wording or structure.
Where the journal requires disclosure of generative writing assistance, this involvement should be reported accurately.
An acknowledgment should not characterize extensive rewriting as simple grammar correction if that description would materially understate what occurred.
Nor should researchers assume that placing a statement in acknowledgments automatically makes the assistance permissible. Disclosure and permission are separate requirements.
Should AI-Assisted Literature Searching Be Reported in Acknowledgments?
The answer depends on the nature of the search and the journal's reporting requirements.
Using an AI tool to suggest possible search terms may be treated differently from using AI to identify, screen, or select studies for a systematic review.
When AI affects a documented literature-search or evidence-selection method, reporting in the methods section may be necessary for transparency and reproducibility.
For example, a systematic review that uses AI-assisted screening should explain the screening procedure sufficiently for readers to understand how studies were selected.
A brief acknowledgment would not necessarily provide that methodological information.
Researchers should distinguish disclosure of AI-assisted literature searching from acknowledgment of assistance with manuscript wording.
Should AI-Assisted Data Analysis Be Reported in Acknowledgments?
Usually, methodological AI assistance requires a more substantive description than an acknowledgment alone can provide.
If AI was used to code qualitative responses, generate statistical procedures, classify data, or influence the analysis, readers may need information about how those activities were performed.
The ICMJE specifically directs authors to describe AI use in data collection and analysis in the methods section.
COPE also emphasizes methodological disclosure of AI use, including the tool and its role.
Depending on the journal and research design, relevant details may include the tool, model version, inputs, procedures, validation, and the extent of human review.
The distinction between methods reporting and acknowledgment of AI assistance is therefore particularly important for research activities that affect findings.
What Information Should an AI Acknowledgment Include?
Where an acknowledgment is required, it should provide enough information to identify the assistance without exaggerating or concealing its extent.
A useful statement may identify the AI tool, the purpose for which it was used, and the human review performed.
Some journals may request additional details such as the model version, provider, or date of use.
Researchers should not invent a model version they did not record or claim to have verified outputs that they did not actually check.
The statement should reflect the work performed and satisfy the journal's instructions.
Illustrative Acknowledgment
AI Assistance With Manuscript Language
"The authors used ChatGPT (OpenAI) to assist with language refinement and sentence clarity during manuscript preparation. The authors reviewed and revised the suggested changes and take responsibility for the final text."
This is an illustrative statement, not a universally approved publisher template. It should be adapted only where the described assistance and verification actually occurred.
Further details concerning the information required in an AI disclosure statement depend on the tool's role and the publication policy.
Should the Acknowledgment Identify the AI Model Version?
Some journals may require the tool or model version, particularly when AI assistance affects research methods or reproducibility.
For ordinary writing assistance, the reporting requirements may be less detailed.
Model identification can still be useful because a commercial tool name may refer to different underlying models over time.
However, researchers should not assume that every journal requires a version number in acknowledgments.
The appropriate level of detail depends on the policy and the significance of the AI contribution.
When version information is unavailable, researchers should avoid inventing it and follow the journal's instructions for reporting what is known.
Does an AI Acknowledgment Need to Mention Prompts?
Not automatically. Some journals or research methodologies may require detailed documentation of prompts, especially when AI outputs materially influence analysis or research procedures.
For routine manuscript-language assistance, reproducing every prompt in acknowledgments would often be unnecessary unless specifically required.
Researchers should distinguish between information needed for a concise disclosure and records needed for methodological reproducibility or a research audit trail.
Where prompts are relevant, they may be reported in methods, supplementary materials, or another approved location.
The question of whether AI prompts should be disclosed requires considering their role in the research and any confidentiality restrictions.
Does an Acknowledgment Remove the Need for a Submission-System Declaration?
Not necessarily.
Some journals require authors to complete AI-use declarations during submission, even when the manuscript already contains a disclosure.
The ICMJE recommends describing AI use in both the cover letter and the submitted work in the appropriate section.
A journal may also provide a separate declaration field or request additional details during editorial assessment.
Researchers should therefore check both the manuscript requirements and the submission system's instructions.
A statement appearing in acknowledgments does not automatically satisfy every administrative disclosure requirement.
Does Acknowledging AI Reduce the Authors' Responsibility?
No. Acknowledgment explains that assistance occurred; it does not transfer accountability to the tool.
The ICMJE and COPE explicitly retain responsibility for AI-assisted material with the human authors.
Researchers must verify generated claims, ensure appropriate attribution, and correct errors when necessary.
An acknowledgment should not imply that an AI system endorsed the manuscript or accepted responsibility for its contents.
The relationship between AI assistance and human authorship responsibility remains unchanged regardless of the disclosure location.
What If the Journal Has No Clear AI-Acknowledgment Policy?
When the journal's instructions are ambiguous, researchers should avoid assuming that silence means unrestricted or disclosure-free AI use.
Review the author guidelines, submission declarations, publisher-level AI policy, and any discipline-specific requirements.
If the appropriate location remains unclear, a concise inquiry to the editorial office may resolve the issue before submission.
Researchers should retain an accurate record of the assistance and any clarification received.
This approach is preferable to adding a vague acknowledgment and assuming that it satisfies an unspecified policy.
