To disclose AI use in a research paper, name the tool, identify the task and the part of the manuscript it affected, and describe what the authors checked. Put the statement where your target journal asks for it. “We used AI for editing” leaves a reader guessing whether the tool corrected punctuation, translated a passage, or helped interpret a result.
If you already have a draft, open the version immediately before the AI-assisted changes alongside the version you plan to submit. These two files, your notes, and your coauthors’ recollections give you the facts to write a specific declaration.
Find out where your journal wants the AI disclosure
Open the instructions for your article type and the journal’s AI policy. Record which uses are permitted, which ones need a declaration, where it belongs, and whether the submission form asks a separate question. If your paper is also a thesis or course assignment, check the relevant program or course instructions as well.
- Elsevier. Its journal policy calls for a separate declaration for AI-assisted manuscript preparation, covering the tool, purpose, and author oversight. It exempts basic grammar, spelling, and punctuation checks, while substantive changes to sentence structure or organization call for disclosure. Research uses belong in the Methods section with enough detail to describe the work. Read Elsevier’s journal policy.
- Springer Nature. Its manuscript guidance includes AI language editing among uses authors should describe and asks authors to confirm responsibility for the text. Read Springer Nature’s manuscript guidance.
- ICMJE. For medical journals following its recommendations, ICMJE asks for an account of AI assistance in the cover letter and the appropriate part of the submitted work, as applicable. It assigns responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the paper to its human authors. Read ICMJE’s recommendations for authors.
These policies were checked on November 6, 2026. Follow the current instructions of the journal receiving your manuscript, including any required wording. If a journal allows language editing but you also used the tool to categorize observations, check its research-methods policy before relying on the writing declaration.
Reconstruct what the tool actually did
Make one short entry for each distinct task. You might have used the same tool to suggest a shorter abstract and to draft a data-cleaning function. Those actions affected different parts of the work and need different explanations.
- Tool. Record the service and the model or version displayed at the time, if available. If a required detail is missing, check your records or ask the journal how to report it. Guessing a version makes the account harder to verify.
- Task and material. Identify the section or research step and what you asked the tool to do. “Suggested alternative English wording for two translated excerpts” tells the reader more than “improved the paper.”
- What you retained. Check the final draft against the earlier one. Record which suggestions you used, including any changes to technical terms, interpretations, citations, or analysis code.
- What you verified. Name a concrete check you performed, such as comparing a translation with its source passage or tracing a revised numerical claim back to a results table. Mark any outstanding check for follow-up.
Turn an editing record into a disclosure statement
Consider a hypothetical team revising its Methods section. The authors asked a tool to shorten a recruitment paragraph. One suggestion changed “people invited to participate” to “participants enrolled.” The team compared the wording with its recruitment record, restored the distinction, and kept a shorter description of how invitations were sent. This example uses an invented workflow.
A disclosure that matches those actions could read as follows. Replace the tool placeholder with the actual name and use this wording only if it describes your work.
We used [tool name] to suggest shorter wording for the recruitment paragraph in Methods. We compared the proposed edits with our recruitment record, kept the distinction between invitation and enrollment, and reviewed the final paragraph. We take responsibility for the wording and its accuracy.
Suppose a coauthor later explains that the tool also proposed a script for counting invitations. The paragraph above still describes the language edit, but the use log now needs a second entry. Record what the script did, which version ran, and how the count was checked. If the count has yet to be verified, finish that check before describing it as complete. Use the journal’s instructions to decide what belongs in the Methods and any supplementary material.
Copy this AI disclosure template
Use the following sentences as a working draft. Replace the brackets, remove instructions, and match the journal’s requested format. Where a journal supplies a mandatory statement, use your completed record to fill it in.
We used [tool and requested version details] to [specific task] in [section or research step]. We used its output to [describe what was retained]. We checked [specific item] against [underlying material] and [describe the decision or correction]. The authors reviewed [scope of review] and take responsibility for the final work.
For a multi-author paper, circulate the draft declaration with a specific request. Ask each contributor to check the entry for their section and add any use involving figures, references, analysis, or code. A coauthor who reviewed only the Introduction can confirm that part of the record. Describe a whole-manuscript review only after the authors have completed it.
Check the statement against the files you will submit
Read the declaration beside the final manuscript and any cover-letter or form response. Look for differences in the named tool, the affected sections, and the checks you say you performed. If you changed journals during revision, repeat the placement check for the new venue. The research paper revision checklist can help you keep these checks with the rest of your draft review.
If an AI suggestion introduced a reference, open the original publication and verify that it supports the sentence you kept. Record the tool’s contribution in your disclosure and cite the publication supporting the research claim. Follow the citation-checking guide for a worked verification process.
When you review proposed edits in towrite.ai, you can accept or reject each one. Keep a brief note of any edit that changes a scientific term or the scope of a claim. That note gives you something concrete to consult when preparing the disclosure. Try towrite.ai on your own draft.
This blog article was prepared with AI assistance for towrite.ai. The cover was generated with AI. The recruitment scenario is a hypothetical teaching example.