Define AI Use and Authorship Boundaries
An AI disclosure checklist should ask authors to identify every tool used, its version, the task it performed, and the stage of the workflow where it intervened. It should distinguish drafting assistance from analysis, translation, coding, image generation, and citation support, while requiring authors to confirm that they reviewed and take responsibility for all final claims. It should also prompt disclosure of prompts or settings when they materially affected results, and clarify whether any AI output was used verbatim or only as a starting point.
Also worth reading: AI Publishing Disclosure: What Should Authors and Publishers Say in 2026? · KDP AI Disclosure Guide: What Authors Must Declare in 2026? · What are the AI book cover disclosure requirements for 2026 and how do they affect self-published authors?
The checklist should include authorship boundaries by stating that AI cannot be listed as an author and that humans remain accountable for accuracy, ethics, originality, and compliance with journal policy. It should ask whether confidential data, copyrighted material, or unpublished manuscripts were entered into a tool, and whether permissions or institutional approvals were needed. Finally, it should require a concise disclosure statement, version details, and confirmation that all contributors agree with the described use.
Document Tools, Prompts, and Outputs
An AI disclosure checklist should ask authors to name the tool, version, and provider; describe the task it performed; state whether prompts or outputs were edited; and identify who reviewed the final text. It should also require authors to confirm that they remain responsible for accuracy, originality, and citations, and to note any restrictions from journals, funders, or institutions. Clear categories help distinguish brainstorming from drafting, editing, coding, or data analysis, so readers can judge how much machine assistance shaped the work.
A good checklist should be specific without becoming burdensome. It should prompt authors to disclose when AI generated or altered text, images, code, or references, and to explain how they verified claims and checked for hallucinations. It should ask whether confidential data, copyrighted material, or unpublished manuscripts were entered into a system, and whether the tool influenced conclusions or interpretations. Finally, it should encourage a short, standardized statement that readers, reviewers, and editors can compare across papers, while leaving room for context about limitations and human oversight.
Match Journal and Publisher Policies
An AI disclosure checklist should ask authors to name every generative tool, version, and provider used; describe the specific tasks it performed, such as drafting, editing, coding, or analysis; and state how much of the final work relied on its output. It should also require authors to confirm that they reviewed, verified, and take responsibility for all AI-assisted content, including facts, citations, and interpretations, rather than treating the tool as an author or source of authority.
The checklist should further cover data privacy, confidentiality, and rights, including whether protected, unpublished, or proprietary material was entered into a tool and whether outputs may be reused. It should prompt authors to match their disclosure to the target journal or publisher policy, note any institutional or funder requirements, and update the statement if use changes during revision. Clear, consistent disclosures help editors assess originality, reproducibility, and accountability while reducing avoidable delays.
Protect Data, Rights, and Attribution
A useful checklist should ask authors to name the tool, version, date, and exact task it performed, such as drafting, editing, translation, coding, or image generation. It should require a statement of human oversight, including who reviewed, verified, and approved outputs, and whether any AI-suggested citations, data, or claims were independently checked. Authors should also disclose prompts or workflows when relevant, especially for methods, and explain how privacy, confidentiality, and copyright were protected.
The checklist should separate prohibited uses from permitted assistance, clarifying that AI cannot be an author and that humans remain accountable. It should ask about conflicts of interest, funding, data provenance, and whether generated images or text raise rights concerns. Finally, it should require a concise disclosure statement in the manuscript and metadata, plus guidance on updating it if tools or uses change during revision. This keeps transparency practical, consistent, and aligned with publisher and institutional policies.
Review Final Manuscript for Accuracy
An AI disclosure checklist should identify every generative tool used, its version, and the manuscript stage where it contributed, from brainstorming to editing. Authors should state whether it generated text, images, code, or analysis, and describe the prompt shaping the output. It should require confirmation that a human author reviewed, edited, and accepts responsibility for all content, including references and factual claims. Privacy checks matter too: authors should confirm that no protected, unpublished, or proprietary data entered public systems without permission.
The checklist should ask whether AI influenced authorship decisions, since tools cannot be authors and contributors remain accountable. It should capture conflicts of interest, funding links, or commercial relationships tied to the technology. Copyright and licensing questions are essential, especially for generated figures or text, along with originality and plagiarism screening. Finally, authors should record how outputs were verified against sources, what limitations remain, and where readers can find the disclosure. A concise form helps journals compare submissions while preserving transparency without discouraging responsible use.
Disclosure Checklist vs Publisher Policy
| Checklist Item | Author Action | Policy Alignment |
|---|---|---|
| Tool and version | Name the AI tool and version used | Matches publisher disclosure rules |
| Task scope | State drafting, editing, or analysis tasks | Clarifies human authorship |
| Human oversight | Describe review and edits made | Supports accountability |
| Data and privacy | Confirm no confidential data was shared | Reduces compliance risk |