Q003¶


Research	R0029 — Plural Voice Attribution
Run	2026-03-27
Query	Q003

Query: Have academic journals, conferences, or publishers issued formal policies on listing AI as a co-author or contributor? What positions have Nature, Science, ACM, IEEE, ICML, NeurIPS, and other major venues taken?

BLUF: Every major venue examined has issued a formal policy prohibiting AI as author or co-author — this prohibition is universal and absolute. Disclosure requirements vary significantly, forming a spectrum from NeurIPS (methodology-only) through ACM/IEEE (acknowledgments) to Science (full prompts in methods). All Big 5 publishers (Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, SAGE) prohibit AI authorship with varying disclosure approaches.

Answer: H3 (Prohibition consensus, disclosure varies) · Confidence: High

Summary¶

Entity	Description
Query Definition	Question as received, clarified, ambiguities, sub-questions
Assessment	Full analytical product
ACH Matrix	Evidence × hypotheses diagnosticity analysis
Self-Audit	ROBIS-adapted 4-domain process audit

Hypotheses¶

ID	Statement	Status
H1	Universal prohibition with disclosure consensus	Partially supported
H2	No policies or inconsistent	Eliminated
H3	Prohibition consensus, disclosure varies	Supported

Venue Policy Comparison¶

Venue	AI Authorship	Disclosure Trigger	Disclosure Location	Grammar Exempt
Nature	Prohibited	AI use beyond copy editing	Not specified	Yes
Science/AAAS	Prohibited	All AI assistance	Cover letter + Acknowledgments + Methods (incl. prompts)	No
ACM	Prohibited	Generative AI use	Acknowledgments	Yes
IEEE	Prohibited	AI-generated content	Acknowledgments	Recommended, not required
NeurIPS	Prohibited	Part of methodology only	Methods	Yes
Elsevier	Prohibited	All generative AI	Dedicated AI declaration	Yes
Springer Nature	Prohibited	LLM use	Methods section	Yes (copy editing)
Wiley	Prohibited	AI use	Methods or Acknowledgments	Yes

Searches¶

ID	Target	Type	Outcome
S01	Publisher AI policies	WebSearch	3 selected, 17 rejected
S02	Conference AI policies	WebSearch	3 selected, 27 rejected

Sources¶

Source	Description	Reliability	Relevance	Evidence
SRC01	Nature	High	High	1 extract
SRC02	Science/AAAS	High	High	1 extract
SRC03	ACM	High	High	1 extract
SRC04	IEEE	High	High	1 extract
SRC05	NeurIPS	High	High	1 extract
SRC06	Big 5 publishers	Medium	High	1 extract

Revisit Triggers¶

Any major venue reverses its AI authorship prohibition
Standardization of disclosure requirements (e.g., a common template)
ICML or other venue issues AI-specific policy beyond inherited guidelines