Where Should AI Use Be Disclosed in a Research Manuscript?

Where Exactly Should You Put an AI Disclosure Statement?

A researcher uses ChatGPT to improve manuscript language and generate preliminary statistical code. The researcher reviews the wording, tests the code, and prepares the manuscript for journal submission.

The journal requires disclosure of generative AI assistance, but the researcher is uncertain where to place it.

Should the statement appear in the acknowledgments? Would it be more appropriate in the methods section? Could a declaration at the end of the manuscript cover both activities?

Another complication arises when the submission system asks about AI use separately from the manuscript. The researcher may have disclosed the assistance in the paper but still needs to determine whether the same information belongs in the cover letter or an online declaration.

The challenge is not simply finding somewhere to mention AI. The disclosure must satisfy the journal's requirements while giving readers an accurate account of the assistance and its relevance to the research.

Use the Location Required by the Journal and Appropriate to AI's Role

The guiding distinction is between declaring that assistance occurred and explaining how the assistance affected the research. A dedicated declaration may satisfy a publisher's transparency requirement without providing all the methodological information needed to evaluate the findings.

How to Select the Appropriate Location for AI Disclosure

Why Does the Location of an AI Disclosure Matter?

Different manuscript sections communicate different kinds of scholarly information.

The methods section explains how research was conducted and provides information needed to evaluate the procedures and findings.

The acknowledgments section ordinarily recognizes assistance that supported the work without necessarily qualifying the contributor for authorship.

A dedicated AI-use declaration may satisfy a publisher's transparency requirements, while a cover letter or submission form communicates information directly to the editorial office.

These purposes overlap, but they are not interchangeable.

For example, a statement in the acknowledgments that ChatGPT assisted with qualitative analysis may identify the tool without explaining how interview responses were coded or how the generated categories were evaluated.

The disclosure may therefore be present while the methods remain insufficiently described.

What Does the ICMJE Recommend?

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends that authors disclose whether AI-assisted technologies were used in producing submitted work and explain how they were used.

Its guidance distinguishes AI writing assistance from methodological AI use.

Writing assistance should be reported in the acknowledgment section, while AI use for data collection, analysis, or figure generation should be described in the methods section as applicable.

The ICMJE also addresses AI disclosure in submission correspondence.

These recommendations are particularly influential in medical publishing, although journals outside medicine may adopt similar approaches.

Researchers should verify the intended journal's current instructions rather than assuming that every publisher follows the same reporting structure.

What Does COPE Recommend?

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) emphasizes transparency concerning AI tools used in manuscript writing, image production, and research activities.

Its position on authorship and AI tools calls for disclosure of the tool and how it was used in the materials and methods section or an equivalent location.

COPE also maintains that AI systems cannot be listed as authors because they cannot assume scholarly accountability.

The reporting location described in COPE's position is not identical to the ICMJE's distinction between writing assistance and methodological AI use.

Both authorities emphasize transparency and human responsibility, but their instructions should not be treated as interchangeable.

The journal's implementation determines the specific location required for a submission.

What About Springer Nature and Elsevier?

Springer Nature and Elsevier maintain publisher-level policies governing generative AI use in scholarly manuscripts.

These policies address the types of assistance requiring declaration and the appropriate reporting mechanisms.

Springer Nature distinguishes defined routine AI-assisted copyediting from more substantive generative AI assistance and permits certain reporting locations for declared uses.

Elsevier provides requirements for generative AI use in manuscript preparation, including a designated declaration in applicable circumstances.

However, publisher-level guidance may coexist with journal-specific instructions, submission fields, and disciplinary reporting standards.

Researchers should consult the current policy applicable to the particular journal rather than rely exclusively on a general publisher statement.

Which Manuscript Section Is Usually Appropriate?

These locations are illustrative rather than universal. The actual requirements depend on the journal's policy and the role of AI in the work.

When Should AI Use Be Reported in the Methods Section?

AI use belongs in methodological reporting when it materially contributes to how the research was conducted or how evidence was processed, analyzed, or interpreted.

For example, a researcher might use AI to classify open-ended survey responses, generate analytical code, or extract information from documents.

These activities may influence the findings and therefore require sufficient detail for readers to understand the procedures.

A useful methods description should explain the AI task, the materials processed, the role of human researchers, and relevant verification.

The level of detail should be proportionate to the methodological significance of the assistance.

The distinction between AI disclosure in methods and acknowledgments is especially important when AI contributed to analysis rather than merely improving manuscript language.

When Should AI Use Be Reported in the Acknowledgments?

Acknowledgments may be appropriate for AI assistance with manuscript preparation when the journal specifies or permits that location.

For example, the ICMJE recommends acknowledging AI-assisted writing.

Such assistance may include substantive language refinement or drafting activities that fall within the journal's disclosure requirements.

However, researchers should not assume that acknowledgments are universally appropriate for all AI use.

Some publishers require a separate declaration, and methodological assistance may need to be described in methods.

The acknowledgment should accurately identify the assistance without implying that the AI system qualifies as an author.

Questions about reporting AI assistance in acknowledgments should therefore be resolved using the journal's actual policy.

What Is a Dedicated AI-Use Declaration?

A dedicated AI-use declaration is a statement specifically identifying generative AI or other AI-assisted technologies used during the research or manuscript preparation.

It may appear under a heading such as "Declaration of Generative AI Use," "AI-Assisted Technologies," or another title prescribed by the publisher.

The exact heading and placement may be specified in the author instructions.

A dedicated declaration can make AI assistance easier for editors and readers to locate.

However, it should not automatically replace methodological reporting when AI materially affected the research procedures.

For example, a declaration naming ChatGPT as a tool used for data analysis may need to be accompanied by a methods description explaining the analytical procedure.

Can AI Use Be Disclosed in More Than One Location?

Yes. Multiple disclosures may be appropriate or required when they serve different purposes.

For example, a researcher may describe AI-assisted coding in the methods section and report AI-assisted manuscript drafting in a dedicated declaration.

The submission system may also ask the researcher to confirm whether generative AI was used.

These statements should be consistent but need not repeat every detail.

A concise declaration can identify the tool and summarize its role, while the methods section explains the procedures necessary to evaluate the research.

Researchers should avoid contradictory descriptions, such as stating that AI was used only for language editing while reporting AI-generated analytical code elsewhere.

Does AI Use Need to Be Disclosed in the Cover Letter?

Some journals and publishing frameworks require AI-use information in the cover letter or other submission correspondence.

The ICMJE addresses disclosure in submission correspondence as well as the manuscript.

A cover-letter statement may help the editor understand the nature of AI assistance before peer review.

However, it should not be assumed that cover-letter disclosure alone satisfies manuscript reporting requirements.

The journal may require information in both locations.

Researchers should follow the submission instructions and ensure that the descriptions are consistent.

What If the Submission System Asks About AI Use Separately?

Researchers should answer the submission questions accurately, even when the manuscript already contains an AI-use statement.

Online declarations may serve editorial, compliance, or recordkeeping purposes distinct from the published manuscript.

For example, a submission form may ask whether AI-assisted technologies were used, what tools were involved, and whether the authors reviewed the outputs.

The researcher should not assume that the presence of a manuscript declaration automatically completes those fields.

Similarly, answering the online questions does not necessarily eliminate a required manuscript statement.

The two reporting mechanisms should be treated as complementary where the journal requires both.

Should AI-Generated Figures Be Disclosed in Figure Captions?

Where AI-generated or AI-modified imagery is permitted, figure captions may be an appropriate or required location for identifying the nature of the image.

However, image policies may impose restrictions that cannot be satisfied merely by adding a caption.

For example, a journal may prohibit certain forms of generative AI artwork even when the image is clearly labeled.

AI-generated research stimuli or scientific image-processing procedures may also require methodological descriptions.

Researchers should first establish whether the intended image use is permitted.

The requirements concerning AI-generated research imagery should be evaluated separately from ordinary writing-assistance policies.

Should AI Use Be Reported in the Results Section?

The results section ordinarily presents the findings of the research rather than serving as the primary location for describing analytical procedures.

When AI contributes to data analysis, the methods section generally provides the more appropriate location for explaining how the results were produced.

However, the results may need to identify outputs from an AI system when those outputs are themselves the subject of investigation.

For example, a study comparing human and AI classifications may report the AI system's performance in the results section while describing its implementation in methods.

The distinction is between reporting AI as a methodological tool and reporting AI behavior as a research finding.

Researchers should ensure that the manuscript makes both roles clear where applicable.

Should AI Use Be Mentioned in the Abstract?

Not every AI-assisted activity needs to appear in the abstract.

However, when AI forms a central part of the research design, intervention, analytical method, or findings, mentioning it may be necessary for an accurate summary.

For example, a study evaluating an AI-assisted assessment system should ordinarily identify that system as part of the research context.

By contrast, a manuscript that used AI only for language editing would not normally need to describe that assistance in the abstract unless the journal requires it.

The abstract should accurately represent the research rather than serve as a substitute for the journal's designated AI disclosure.

Should AI Assistance Be Included in Author Contribution Statements?

Author contribution statements generally describe the roles performed by eligible human contributors.

The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) provides standardized categories such as conceptualization, formal analysis, software, and writing.

However, CRediT does not independently determine authorship eligibility, and major publishing authorities exclude AI systems from academic authorship.

Researchers should therefore avoid assigning AI a formal author contribution merely because it performed a task resembling a CRediT category.

Where the journal permits contextual information about AI assistance alongside contribution statements, that information should not imply authorship eligibility.

The distinction between AI assistance and author contribution statements remains important.

What If AI Was Used for Both Writing and Research Analysis?

A single AI tool may contribute to several activities requiring different forms of reporting.

For example, ChatGPT may generate preliminary statistical code and later improve the language of the discussion section.

Under a policy distinguishing methodological and writing assistance, the code-generation activity may require methods reporting, while the writing assistance may belong in acknowledgments or a dedicated declaration.

The researcher should describe the activities separately enough to avoid confusion.

It would be misleading to state that ChatGPT was used only for grammar correction when it also influenced the analytical workflow.

At the same time, the manuscript need not repeat identical tool information unnecessarily if the journal permits cross-referencing or consolidated reporting.

Does Routine AI Grammar Correction Need a Disclosure Location?

Only where the applicable policy requires disclosure.

Some publishers exempt defined routine AI-assisted copyediting, while others impose broader reporting requirements.

If the assistance qualifies for an exemption, the researcher may not need to prepare a formal statement.

However, substantive rewriting should not be classified as routine grammar correction merely because the original prompt requested language improvement.

The question of disclosing AI-assisted grammar correction must be resolved before deciding where any statement belongs.

What If the Journal Requires a Statement but AI Was Not Used?

Some journals require authors to complete an AI-use declaration regardless of whether AI assistance occurred.

Where the submission instructions request a negative declaration, researchers should provide an accurate statement indicating that no reportable AI assistance was used.

However, authors should not invent a negative declaration requirement when the journal does not request one.

The statement should also be consistent with the journal's definition of reportable AI use.

For example, a journal that exempts routine copyediting may define the scope of its declaration differently from one requiring disclosure of all generative AI assistance.

What Happens If AI Is Disclosed in the Wrong Section?

The consequences depend on the journal's policy and the nature of the omission.

An otherwise accurate statement placed in the wrong section may require editorial revision rather than indicating research misconduct.

However, a generic acknowledgment may be insufficient when AI materially influenced the research methodology and the manuscript omits necessary procedural details.

Researchers should distinguish formatting noncompliance from substantive underreporting.

If the journal requests relocation or expansion of a disclosure, the authors should provide the required information accurately.

Deliberately concealing consequential AI involvement raises different concerns from an inadvertent placement error.

What If the Journal's Instructions Are Ambiguous?

Researchers should review the current author guidelines, publisher-level AI policy, and submission declarations.

If the appropriate location remains unclear, a concise inquiry to the editorial office may be appropriate.

The inquiry should describe the actual AI activity and ask where it should be reported.

For example, asking where to disclose AI-generated statistical code is more informative than asking whether ChatGPT is generally permitted.

Researchers should retain any clarification received and ensure that the manuscript and submission declarations remain consistent.

How to Place Different AI Disclosures in the Same Research Manuscript

The researcher does not rely on one vague statement that AI was used during the study.

Instead, each disclosure serves a defined purpose: methodological explanation, transparency about manuscript preparation, or editorial compliance.

This approach allows readers to understand how AI contributed without confusing writing assistance with analytical involvement.

Misconceptions About Where AI Use Should Be Disclosed

How Should You Choose the Correct AI Disclosure Location?

The practical approach is to identify what AI contributed, determine whether disclosure is required, and then follow the journal's reporting instructions.

When AI materially affects research methods, the manuscript should also contain sufficient procedural information to support methodological evaluation.

Researchers should ensure that the disclosures describe the actual assistance rather than simply reproduce a generic statement from another manuscript.

The appropriate disclosure is one that satisfies the publisher's instructions and allows readers to understand the role of AI without obscuring consequential procedures.

What to Verify Before Placing AI Disclosures in a Manuscript

Frequently Asked Questions About AI Disclosure Placement

AI Disclosure Belongs Where Its Contribution Can Be Properly Understood

How to Cite This Guide

This guide is intended to be read, shared, and used in research, teaching, and academic work. If you draw on its ideas, explanations, or other content, please acknowledge the source by citing the guide. Doing so gives appropriate credit and helps your readers locate the original resource.