Skip to main content

​
Core principle

When AI is used in the production of a deliverable, that use must be declared — accurately, specifically, and in the right place. “We used ChatGPT a bit” is not a disclosure. Vague language fails under audit. The reviewer who signs off remains accountable; declaration does not transfer responsibility.

​
Why this matters now

Through 2024–2025, the major medical journals, scientific societies, and regulators all moved to require explicit disclosure of AI use in submitted work. The trend is clear: non-disclosure is now the higher-risk position. A retraction triggered by undisclosed AI use damages the writer, the author group, the sponsor, and (for agency work) the client relationship. Through 2026, a second shift is underway. Journals that started with “disclose it” are finding that disclosure alone does not fix the underlying problem — a fabricated reference is still fabricated when it is declared, and a formulaic Opinion piece is still formulaic. The leading edge of policy has moved from disclosure to prohibition for specific uses. Plan for both: know what you must declare, and know what you must not do at all. For pharma and medical-affairs teams, AI disclosure expectations now sit alongside the older expectations around financial disclosures, ghostwriting, and editorial assistance. The same principle applies: be specific, declare early, document as you go.

​
The major policies (mid-2026 snapshot)

JAMA Network tightened its policy on 10 August 2026. The updated editorial guidance moves three categories from “disclose” to “not permitted”: AI-generated or AI-formatted references (use a standard reference manager instead), AI-drafted Opinion articles, Letters to the Editor and online Comments, and AI-created or AI-manipulated clinical images, illustrations, video and audio. Grammar, spelling and translation remain permitted, but only on text a human wrote first. Failure to disclose can result in rejection or post-publication corrective action.Source: Updated Guidance for Author Use of AI in Medical Publication, JAMA, 10 August 2026 (doi:10.1001/jama.2026.16613).
Policies evolve, and the direction of travel is towards tighter restriction rather than looser. Always check the current author guidelines for the specific journal at the point of submission — and check them again if a manuscript has been in preparation for more than a few months.

​
What counts as “AI use”

Expectations vary by what AI was actually doing. The spectrum runs from routine and unremarkable through to outright prohibited: When in doubt, check whether it is permitted — then declare.

​
What to declare, where, and how

​
What to include

  • The specific tool used (name and version, where versioning is meaningful)
  • The manufacturer or developer, and the date(s) of use — now explicitly required by JAMA Network
  • What the tool was used for (drafting, editing, translation, etc.)
  • The scope (which sections, which deliverables)
  • How the output was reviewed and by whom, with an explicit statement that the author(s) take responsibility for accuracy and integrity

​
Where to put it

  • Manuscripts: Methods section is the standard location for substantive use; acknowledgments for editorial assistance.
  • Conference abstracts and posters: Acknowledgments or footer.
  • Regulatory documents: Per the relevant agency guidance, which is rapidly evolving.
  • Promotional materials: Per the applicable code (ABPI, IFPMA) and client SOP.

​
Wording

Specific is better than vague. Compare:
“AI was used during writing.”
“Claude (Anthropic, Opus 4.7) was used between 3 and 11 June 2026 to draft the Discussion section. Output was reviewed and edited by [Author X], who takes responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the final content.”
The second version names the tool and manufacturer, dates the use, scopes it to a section, makes a named human accountable, and could survive an audit. Note the sequencing point: disclosure only helps if the use was permitted in the first place. Check the prohibitions before you check the wording. For ready-to-adapt wording across the common scenarios — manuscripts, posters, regulatory documents, promotional materials — see the Disclosure Language Template.

​
Common mistakes

Universally rejected by major journals. AI cannot meet authorship criteria — it cannot take responsibility for the work or respond to post-publication queries. Listing it triggers immediate desk rejection or retraction.
“AI tools were used” or “We used ChatGPT” without specifying scope leaves the reader (and any post-publication investigator) unable to assess what was actually AI-generated. Be specific.
Trying to remember which sections used AI three months later is unreliable. Track AI use as you write: keep a brief log per section or per deliverable. The review and accountability audit-trail recommendations apply directly here.
Several journals (BMJ, Nature, ICMJE-aligned) treat substantive editing — even on human-written drafts — as disclosable. The threshold isn’t “AI wrote a paragraph”; it’s “AI changed the meaning, structure, or strength of a claim.”
Disclosure and permission are two different tests. JAMA Network now prohibits AI-generated references, AI-drafted Opinion pieces and Letters, and AI-created clinical imagery outright — declaring them does not make them submittable. Check what the journal forbids before you draft, not after.
The most consistently damaging failure mode, and now an explicit prohibition at JAMA Network. Frontier models produce references that look entirely real — correct author names, plausible titles, well-formed DOIs — for papers that do not exist. Build references in a reference manager and verify every one against the source record.
Sponsor SOPs increasingly include AI use as a disclosable category in the same bucket as third-party editorial assistance. Check the client’s SOP before any AI-assisted work begins, not at the disclosure stage.

​
Beyond journals

  • Conferences and societies (ISMPP, AMWA, EMWA): Increasingly request AI disclosure on submitted abstracts, posters, and oral presentations. Disclosure conventions are converging on the journal model.
  • Regulators: FDA, EMA, MHRA, and PMDA have all issued guidance or reflection papers on AI use in regulated submissions through 2024–2025. Expectations are evolving fast; treat your client’s regulatory affairs team as the source of truth for any submission-bound deliverable.
  • Pharma sponsors and clients: Many global pharma companies now require AI use to be declared in project briefs and final delivery documentation, regardless of journal or regulator requirements. The disclosure is internal, but the standard is the same: specific, contemporaneous, auditable.

​
How this connects to other playbook principles

  • Human-in-the-loop: Disclosure does not reduce author responsibility. It documents the production process; the named human is still accountable.
  • Review and accountability: The audit trail you maintain to support accountability is the same record you draw from for accurate disclosure. Build the habit once.
  • Source grounding: Declaring AI use does not exempt AI-generated claims from full source verification. Both apply.

​
The bottom line

If you cannot specify what AI did, when, and who reviewed it, you do not have a disclosure — you have a defence. The standard now, across journals, regulators, and SOP-driven clients, is contemporaneous documentation. Build the habit during writing, not at submission. And ask the second question before the first: not only “how do I declare this?” but “is this use permitted at all?” For a growing list of tasks — references above all — the answer is now no.
Last reviewed: 11 August 2026 · 7 min read