Reviewed as of 27 September 2026. If anything has changed, let me know and I will update it with the date of the change.
Using an artificial intelligence tool in academic work is not, in itself, a breach of the rules. It may be allowed, restricted or banned depending on the institution, the course, the journal and the specific task. Concealing a use that should have been declared, however, can breach those rules. This guide explains what to declare, where to do it and how to word it.
First, check the rules that apply
Before using the tool, read the instructions of your university, course, project, journal or publisher. Check too whether different rules apply to writing, translating, coding, analysing data, creating images or searching the literature. A general permission does not mean that every use is allowed.
If the rules are unclear, ask before you submit. Keep the answer and the conditions in force at the time. For work involving personal data, confidential material, other people’s manuscripts or unpublished results, also check the privacy policy and terms of service before entering any content into an external tool.
The tool is not an author
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) holds that an AI tool cannot be listed as an author because it cannot take responsibility for the work, declare conflicts of interest or handle copyright and licensing agreements. The authors are accountable for the whole text, including the parts produced or modified with these tools.
COPE asks authors to disclose which tool was used and how whenever it plays a part in writing, in producing images or graphics, or in collecting and analysing data. It recommends doing so in the Materials and Methods section or an equivalent one. The specific policy of the institution or publication may require a different place or further information.
What to declare
A useful declaration makes it possible to reconstruct the tool’s role. It should state:
- The tool and, if relevant, its version or model. Add the provider and the date of use when the outputs may change over time.
- The specific task. Distinguish between language editing, translation, summarising, generating ideas, preliminary searching, coding, data analysis, image production and drafting.
- The scope. Explain which parts of the work were affected. ‘AI was used’ says less than ‘it was used to suggest a first structure for the introduction’.
- The human work that followed. State what was checked, rewritten, discarded or reproduced by independent methods.
- The material you entered, where it matters. If you uploaded data, code, images or parts of a manuscript, make sure you were allowed to do so and that you did not breach confidentiality or anyone else’s rights.
Do not present a substantial rewrite as mere ‘copy-editing’. Nor should you attribute to the tool decisions that belong to the authors.
Declaring is not verifying
A declaration provides transparency, but it does not correct errors. References, quotations, data, translations, calculations and claims obtained with the help of AI must be checked against the sources or by the appropriate method. A plausible reference may not exist, and a real one may not support the claim attributed to it.
Do not cite a conversation with a tool in place of the original source when the claim can be checked in a publication, a regulation, a database or the material analysed. If the interaction is itself the object of study, keep the record, note the date and follow the required citation style.
Where to put it
Follow the placement required by the institution or publication. In an article it may go in Materials and Methods, in the acknowledgements, in a dedicated section or in the submission form. In coursework it may be required on the cover page, at the end of the text or in an appendix.
If there are no instructions, a short section before the bibliography, headed ‘Declaration on the use of artificial intelligence’, makes it easy to find. If the tool was involved in the method, the data or the analysis, describe it as well where you explain that procedure. A closing note must not hide a relevant methodological decision.
Template declaration
Replace the text in brackets with the actual details and delete whatever does not apply:
Declaration on the use of artificial intelligence. In preparing this work, [tool, provider and version or model, where relevant] was used during [dates] for [specific tasks] in [sections affected]. [The author or the team] reviewed, checked and rewrote the outputs before incorporating them. References and data obtained with the help of the tool were checked against their original sources. [The author or the team] takes responsibility for the choice of sources, the method, the arguments, the interpretations and the final wording.
If it was used for a reproducible methodological step, add the necessary parameters, the review criteria and, where the rules allow, the relevant prompts or logs in an appendix or repository.
If you used no tool and your institution requires a declaration:
Declaration on the use of artificial intelligence. No generative artificial intelligence tools were used in preparing this work.
Common mistakes
- Declaring less than you actually did.
- Naming the tool without explaining the task or the scope.
- Assuming that the declaration exempts you from checking references or results.
- Entering confidential information or other people’s material without checking permissions and terms.
- Listing a tool as an author.
- Reusing a template declaration without adapting it to the actual work.
- Applying the rules of a previous course or journal without checking whether they have changed.
On the open conversation
This guide draws on general principles of publication ethics and on my practice as a researcher. It does not replace the rules of each institution or publication. If you sit on an ethics committee, teach at a university or edit a journal and see a criterion that should be added, the guide remains open.