Back-to-School Offer! Enjoy 50% OFF on the annual plan. Limited time only!

Claim Discount

Back-to-School Offer! Enjoy 50% OFF on the annual plan. Limited time only!

Claim Discount

Back-to-School Offer! Enjoy 50% OFF on the annual plan. Limited time only!

Claim Discount

Back

Content:

AI Policies in Academic Publishing 2025: Guide & Checklist

Oct 9, 2025

Written by: Marc-Oliver Gewaltig & Alessandra Giugliano

Policy note: This guide reflects publisher policies as of 8 October 2025 and may change. Always verify the latest guidelines before submission.

The notions on what is acceptable use of AI in academic publishing are changing as rapidly as the technology itself. Publishers now offer guidance to help authors use large language models and other AI tools without compromising integrity. Yet policies vary by publisher, and they continue to evolve. This article distills the latest rules from Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis and SAGE, showing you what is universally agreed upon—and where you need to pay attention.

The article also provides a pre‑submission checklist to help you comply with disclosure requirements, image restrictions and confidentiality rules. For broader context on how institutions themselves regulate AI, check out our breakdown of generative AI policies at leading universities.

Quick Pre‑Submission AI‑Compliance Checklist

Using AI in research requires planning. Begin your project with compliance in mind and revisit these steps before submitting:

Action	Explanation
Identify your publisher	Confirm which company publishes your target journal. Policies differ across Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis and SAGE.
Read the publisher’s global AI policy	Visit the publisher’s official policy page. Understand authorship rules, disclosure requirements and image bans.
Check journal‑specific guidelines	Some journals impose stricter rules. For example, The Lancet allows AI only to improve readability. Always read the “Author Guidelines” page for deviations.
Decide where to disclose AI use	Elsevier provides a separate declaration template; Springer and Wiley require disclosure in the Methods or Acknowledgements sections. Capture tool names, versions, and purposes.
Log every AI interaction	Keep a spreadsheet noting the date, tool, version and purpose (e.g., “Used ChatGPT‑4, 5 Oct 2025 to rephrase introduction for clarity”). This ensures your disclosure is accurate.
Verify images and figures	Generative AI images are banned by most publishers. Do not use AI to create or alter figures unless your research method requires it, and then document the process thoroughly.
Check exemptions	Publishers exempt basic grammar/spelling tools and AI‑assisted copy editing. If in doubt, disclose.
Review AI tool terms	Wiley advises authors to review the legal terms of AI tools to avoid transferring rights.
Protect confidentiality	If you are a reviewer or editor, never upload any portion of a manuscript into public AI tools.

Core Ethical Principles for AI Use

All major publishers have established ethical frameworks to guide the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in academic writing. These policies try to balance between using AI as a tool while safeguarding academic integrity.

Despite differences, publisher policies share three pillars:

Human Accountability: Authors are solely responsible for all content. AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co‑authors. Human judgement and verification remain indispensable.
Transparency: Publishers expect clear disclosure of AI assistance. Details should include the tool’s name, version, manufacturer and purpose. Some publishers require a separate statement, while others integrate disclosure into the Methods or Acknowledgements.
Authorship: Large language models and other AI tools cannot meet the criteria for authorship. They lack legal accountability and the ability to approve final manuscripts. Authors must critically evaluate and edit any AI‑generated suggestions. For examples of responsible uses, see our guide to ethical AI use in academic writing.

Despite this consensus, individual policies diverge on details and authors are advised to consult the specific guidelines of their target journal. Rules for AI-generated images are highly restrictive, and disclosure requirements vary considerably. Some publishers exempt basic grammar tools or "AI-assisted copy editing" from disclosure. Notably, Wiley requires authors to vet the legal terms of AI tools to manage intellectual property risks. While most journals follow their publisher's global policy, some, like The Lancet, impose stricter rules, such as limiting AI use only to improving "readability and language".(9) This underscores the need for authors to verify the specific requirements of their target journal.

Comparative Analysis of Core AI Policies Across Major Publishers

A thematic, cross-publisher analysis of AI policies reveals a landscape characterized by both broad, industry-wide standards and subtle yet significant differences in implementation. This comparison highlights a collective response to a disruptive technology, grounded in established ethical principles while adapting to new challenges.

Consensus on AI Authorship and Author Accountability

Across all major academic publishers, there is an absolute prohibition of attributing authorship to AI tools. Elsevier (4), Springer Nature (7), Wiley (5), Taylor & Francis (1), and SAGE Publishing (6) all explicitly state that generative AI, LLMs, or any similar technologies cannot be listed as an author or co-author. This consensus is justified by the fundamental responsibilities of academic authorship, which include taking full accountability for the work's integrity, managing legal agreements, and approving the final manuscript. These duties can only be fulfilled by humans or legal persons.(1)

Disclosure Requirements & Exemptions

While transparency is universally mandated, its implementation varies. Each publisher specifies where to place disclosure statements and which activities may be exempt:

Elsevier provides a template for an AI declaration and recommends including it as a separate statement. Basic grammar and spelling checks need not be disclosed.(4)
Springer Nature requires documenting AI use in the Methods section but exempts “AI‑assisted copy editing” that improves readability, style or error correction.(7)
Wiley asks authors to describe AI use “transparently and in detail” in the Methods or Acknowledgements and to review the tool’s terms for intellectual‑property issues.(5)
Taylor & Francis mandates acknowledgment of any AI tool used, including its name and purpose; grammar and spelling tools are exempt.
SAGE distinguishes between assistive AI (refining your own text) and generative AI (creating new content). Assistive AI doesn’t require disclosure; generative AI must be cited and referenced.(6)

Permissible Use of AI for Text Generation: A Tool, Not an Author

Publishers permit AI as a supportive tool for tasks like improving language, brainstorming, or summarizing literature, but not for replacing core intellectual work like analysis or drawing conclusions.(1) The "human-in-the-loop" is a non-negotiable requirement, mandating that authors critically review, edit, and take responsibility for all AI-generated output.(4) The failure to exercise intellectual ownership and critical evaluation, not the use of the tool itself, is considered academic misconduct.

Policies on AI‑Generated Images & Figures

Most publishers prohibit AI‑generated or manipulated images. Elsevier (4), Springer Nature (7), and Taylor & Francis (1) have a near-total ban on using generative AI to create or alter images. The only exception is when AI is integral to the research methodology itself, in which case its use must be meticulously documented and reproducible.(7) This strict stance is driven by unresolved legal risks related to copyright and the paramount importance of visual data integrity in many scientific disciplines.(7)

Springer Nature bans AI‑generated images and videos except where AI is integral to the research and the process is reproducible.
Taylor & Francis forbids creating or altering images using AI.
SAGE’s policy requires generative‑AI images to be cited but generally discourages them.

If your research employs AI to generate data visualisations, obtain permission from your editor and provide full reproducibility details.

To learn how AI can ethically enhance visual storytelling in education, read our post on teaching with AI in higher education.

Confidentiality & AI in Peer Review

There is an absolute consensus prohibiting editors and peer reviewers from uploading any portion of a submitted manuscript into a public-facing generative AI tool.(1) This rule is grounded in the principle of confidentiality that governs peer review. Submitting an author's unpublished work to an external AI platform is a severe breach of confidentiality and compromises intellectual property.(4)

Springer Nature explicitly forbids it and allows AI only for improving the wording of reviews.
Wiley’s guidelines allow AI for language editing but caution against breaching confidentiality.
Taylor & Francis and SAGE likewise prohibit AI in peer review.

If you serve as a reviewer, edit feedback manually or use secure, publisher‑approved tools.

For more on navigating the peer‑review process, see our peer‑review guide.

Comparative Matrix of Publisher AI Policies

Feature	Elsevier	Springer Nature	Wiley	Taylor & Francis	SAGE Publishing
AI as Author	Prohibited 4	Prohibited 7	Prohibited 5	Prohibited 1	Prohibited 6
Author Accountability	Full and final responsibility for all content (4)	Mandatory human accountability for final text (7)	Full accountability for submission and published article (5)	Accountable for originality, validity, and integrity(1)	Entirely responsible for all content (6)
Disclosure of Text Generation	Required in a separate, dedicated "AI declaration statement" (4)	Required in Methods section (or suitable alternative) (7)	Required "transparently and in detail" in Methods or Acknowledgements (5)	Required in Methods or Acknowledgements, including tool name, version, and reason for use (1)	Required via formal citation for "AI-generated" content; prompts & responses must be disclosed (6)
Disclosure Exemptions	Basic checks of grammar, spelling, and punctuation (4)	"AI assisted copy editing" (improving readability, style, error correction) (7)	Tools used only for spelling, grammar, and general editing (5)	Not explicitly defined	"Assistive AI" (refining or improving author's own work) (6)
AI-Generated Images/Figures	Prohibited, with exception for AI as part of research methodology (4)	Prohibited, with narrow, specified exceptions (e.g., work is about AI); exceptions must be labeled (7)	Prohibited for creating, altering, or manipulating original research data and results (14)	Prohibited for creation and manipulation of images and figures (1)	Not explicitly detailed in primary policy, but requires disclosure of AI use in creating visual content (18)
AI in Peer Review	Strictly prohibited for reviewers and editors (4)	Strictly prohibited for reviewers and editors (7)	Not explicitly detailed, but implied by confidentiality principles (19)	Strictly prohibited for reviewers and editors (1)	Strictly prohibited for reviewers and editors (6)
Unique Policy Feature	Provides a specific template for the disclosure statement (4)	Explicitly defines and exempts "AI assisted copy editing" (7)	Requires authors to review the AI tool's Terms & Conditions for IP/data rights issues (5)	Requires pre-approval from editor for book authors intending to use AI (1)	Requires formal citation of AI-generated content in the reference list (6)

Detailed Publisher Policy Overviews

This section provides a granular, evidence-based breakdown of each major publisher's specific policies, serving as a detailed reference for authors navigating the submission process.

Elsevier

Elsevier's policy prohibits AI authorship and holds authors fully accountable for all content.(4) Use of AI to improve language is permitted with human oversight, but must be declared in a separate "AI declaration statement," for which a template is provided. Basic grammar and spelling checks are exempt. The policy strictly forbids the use of generative AI to create or alter images, except when AI is a documented part of the research methodology.(4) Editors and reviewers are also prohibited from using AI tools on submitted manuscripts.(4)

Springer Nature

Springer Nature does not permit AI authorship and requires human accountability for the final text.(7) Use of LLMs must be documented in the Methods section, but the policy uniquely exempts "AI assisted copy editing" from disclosure.(7) The publisher also prohibits AI-generated images and videos, citing unresolved legal and integrity issues, with only narrow, specified exceptions.(7) Peer reviewers are explicitly forbidden from uploading manuscripts into generative AI tools.(7)

Wiley

Following COPE guidelines, Wiley prohibits AI authorship and mandates full author accountability.(5) AI use must be described "transparently and in detail" in the Methods or Acknowledgements section, though basic editing tools are exempt.(5) A distinctive feature of Wiley's policy is the requirement for authors to review the terms and conditions of any AI tool to ensure there are no intellectual property conflicts with the publishing agreement.(5)

Taylor & Francis

Taylor & Francis holds that AI tools cannot be authors, as they cannot assume legal or ethical responsibility for the work.(1) Authors are accountable for the originality and integrity of their submissions. For journal articles, AI use must be acknowledged with details about the tool and its purpose. For books, authors must seek pre-approval from their editor to use AI, ideally at the proposal stage.(1) The publisher does not permit AI-generated or manipulated images.(1)

SAGE Publishing

SAGE Publishing prohibits AI authorship and holds the human author entirely responsible for the work's accuracy.(6) Its policy creates a novel distinction for disclosure: "Assistive AI" (refining one's own work) does not require disclosure, while "Generative AI" (directly generating content) must be formally cited in-text and included in the reference list. This approach treats the AI's output as a citable source, demanding a high level of transparency.(6)

Journal-Specific Policies and Deviations from Publisher Standards

While major publishers establish comprehensive, overarching policies, individual journals retain the autonomy to implement stricter or more specific guidelines. This section examines key instances where journal policies either deviate from or add clarifying detail to the standards set by their parent publisher, underscoring the necessity for authors to conduct due diligence at the journal level.

The Lancet (Elsevier): This high-impact journal narrows Elsevier's broader policy by stating that AI should only be used to improve "readability and language," effectively prohibiting its use for other tasks like literature summarization.(9) This reflects the stricter norms of the medical research community.
Cell (Elsevier): Journals in cellular and molecular biology often have more detailed rules, especially for visual data. Cell's author guidelines direct authors to two separate policies for AI in writing and AI in figures, signaling heightened scrutiny.(20) Other journals in the field, like Cellular, Molecular and Biomedical Reports, take a more prohibitive stance, "strictly discouraging" AI use for text generation or data interpretation.(21)
Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature): In contrast, journals within the Nature portfolio appear to adhere strictly to the centralized Springer Nature policy, with no separate or divergent guidelines. This reflects a centralized governance strategy ensuring consistency across all its publications.(7)

AI Compliance Practical Guidance & Best Practices for Authors

For convenience, we have synthesized our analysis into a practical checklist to help academic authors use AI responsibly and meet the requirements of major publishers.

Principle 1: Assume Full and Final Responsibility

The cornerstone of every publisher's AI policy is that the human author is the sole guarantor of the work's integrity. Never delegate critical thinking or final judgment to an AI tool.

Action: Manually and rigorously verify every fact, claim, analysis, and citation produced or suggested by an AI tool. Be aware of the risk of AI "hallucinations"—the generation of plausible-sounding but fabricated information, including fake references. Your reputation is tied to the accuracy of your manuscript, not the tool you used to help write it.(1)

Principle 2: When in Doubt, Disclose

It is far better to disclose a use of AI that might have been exempt than to be questioned for non-disclosure after submission. The most prudent strategy is to err on the side of over-disclosure.

Action: From the start of your project, maintain a detailed log of your AI usage. For each instance, record the full name and version of the tool, the date it was used, and the specific purpose (e.g., "Used ChatGPT-4 on 5 October 2025, to rephrase three paragraphs in the introduction for improved clarity and flow"). This will make writing an accurate and comprehensive disclosure statement straightforward.(5)

Principle 3: Know Your Publisher's and Journal's Guidelines

Do not assume that all AI policies are the same. The differences, though sometimes subtle, can be critical for compliance. A systematic check is essential before every submission.

Action - Pre-Submission Checklist:

[ ] Publisher Identification: Have I correctly identified the publisher of my target journal?
[ ] Global Policy Review: Have I located and carefully read the publisher's most recent global AI policy? (e.g., Elsevier 4; Springer Nature 7; Wiley 5; Taylor & Francis 1; SAGE 6).
[ ] Journal Policy Check: Have I checked the "Author Guidelines" or "Instructions for Authors" page of my target journal to check for any addendums, deviations, or more restrictive rules? (e.g., The Lancet's "only for readability" rule 9).
[ ] Disclosure Location: Do I know precisely where the disclosure statement must be placed? (e.g., a separate dedicated statement, the Methods section, or the Acknowledgements).
[ ] Disclosure Content: Do I know exactly what information must be included in the disclosure? (e.g., tool name, version, manufacturer, purpose of use).
[ ] Image Policy Verification: Does my manuscript contain any images, figures, charts, or artwork? If so, have I confirmed that their creation and any subsequent modifications are fully compliant with the publisher's strict anti-generation and anti-alteration policies?
[ ] Exemption Check (Especially for Springer Nature/SAGE): If I used AI for tasks related to copy editing or language refinement, does my specific use case fit the publisher's narrow definition of an exempt activity that does not require disclosure?
[ ] Legal Diligence (Especially for Wiley): Have I considered the Terms and Conditions of the AI tool I used to ensure that its provider does not claim any rights over my content that would conflict with my publishing agreement?.(5)

Principle 4: Uphold Absolute Confidentiality

AI must never be used in peer-review, whether you are acting as a reviewer or an editor.

Action: Never upload, copy, or paste any portion of a manuscript you are reviewing or any confidential information related to it into any AI platform. This is considered a severe ethical breach that violates author confidentiality and compromises intellectual property.(1)

Key Takeaways for Submitting Under AI Policies

The landscape of AI in academic publishing is evolving rapidly. Publishers are converging on core principles—human accountability, transparency, and caution over AI‑generated images—yet their policies differ in important details. By following the pre‑submission checklist provided in this post, understanding each publisher’s requirements and staying alert to journal‑specific variations, you can confidently harness AI’s benefits without jeopardizing your research.

Ready to ensure your manuscript meets these standards?

Subscribe to thesify to run a pre‑submission review to pinpoint gaps in structure, argumentation and disclosure, then chat with Theo to build a clear revision plan.

Going Beyond Journal Recommendations: How AI Supports Conference Submission & Academic Publishing: Finding the perfect venue for your research can feel like a second full‑time job. Researchers, post‑docs, and PhD students scroll endless Calls for Papers, juggle submission deadlines, and still wonder whether their choice will make an impact. Use AI to spot the right conference, match a journal, and polish your submission, so your research lands where it matters, fast—all in thesify.
Mastering the Peer Review Process: Peer review is the critical evaluation process in which experts in a given field examine the quality, accuracy, and relevance of scholarly manuscripts before publication. Essential to maintaining academic integrity, peer review ensures only high-quality research contributes to the body of academic knowledge. Learn how the academic peer review process works and how to navigate it successfully. Practical tips for authors, ethical AI insights, and peer review FAQs included.
How to Write a Scientific Paper in 2025: Ideas First: Even with AI, a paper stands on the strength of its idea. This guide shows how interpretation, thesis focus, and narrative framing turn results into science. Scientific writing is about communication, not just information. The purpose of scientific discourse is to communicate, not merely present results. Learn why you must have something to say, someone to say it to and the discipline to write and rewrite.