If your target journal has no clear AI disclosure policy, your safest approach is to treat the absence of a policy as a reason for full transparency rather than a loophole, and to document every use of AI tools from the very start. This protects you from post-publication accusations of undisclosed AI use, which are increasingly common as journals update their guidelines retroactively.
Step 1: Check for any indirect guidance
Before assuming there’s no policy, look beyond the "Author Guidelines" page. Check:
- The journal’s website FAQ or news section – policies are often announced in editorials.
- The publisher’s general ethics page – even if the journal is silent, the publisher (e.g., Elsevier, Springer, Wiley) likely has a blanket policy.
- Recent editorials or articles – editors sometimes clarify AI use expectations in a letter to authors.
- COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) – many journals adopt COPE’s position on AI, even without stating it explicitly.
Step 2: Ask the editor directly
If you still find nothing, email the editorial office with a brief, specific question. For example: “I plan to use a large language model to polish language and generate code for data analysis. Does your journal require disclosure of this, and if so, in what section?” Editors appreciate proactive queries and will often give you a direct answer or point you to a forthcoming policy.
Step 3: Adopt the most conservative standard
In the absence of guidance, follow the strictest common practice among similar journals in your field:
- Disclose all AI use in the acknowledgments or a dedicated "AI tools used" statement.
- Never list AI as a co-author – this is universally rejected by major publishers.
- Retain full responsibility for the accuracy and originality of AI-generated content.
- Save all prompts and outputs – you may need to provide them if a reviewer or editor asks.
Step 4: Use a tool that builds transparency into your workflow
To make this easier, consider using a reference and writing assistant that logs your process. WisPaper’s TrueCite, for instance, automatically verifies every citation against real published metadata and flags formatting issues, so you can confidently state in your disclosure that all references were checked against a traceable database—reducing the risk of AI-fabricated sources even when the journal’s rules are unclear.
Step 5: Prepare for post-submission changes
Journals frequently update AI policies between submission and acceptance. If a policy appears after you submit, you’ll be asked to comply. Your early documentation will make this a simple formality rather than a crisis.
Bottom line
When in doubt, over-disclose. A transparent statement that you used AI for specific, well-defined tasks is rarely penalized, while silence can lead to retraction or an ethics investigation. If the journal later clarifies its policy, you’ll already be in compliance with the strictest interpretation.
