R0029/2026-03-27/Q003 — Assessment¶
BLUF¶
Every major academic publisher, journal, and conference examined has issued a formal policy prohibiting AI as author or co-author. This prohibition is universal and absolute across Nature, Science, ACM, IEEE, NeurIPS, ICML, Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE. However, disclosure requirements vary significantly — from NeurIPS (methodology-only disclosure) to Science (full prompts in methods section) to Elsevier (dedicated AI declaration statement). The field has achieved principle-level consensus but not implementation-level standardization.
Probability¶
Rating: Almost certain (95-99%) that AI authorship prohibition is the consensus position
Confidence in assessment: High
Confidence rationale: Six primary/secondary sources covering 11 venues all confirm the same prohibition. No counterexample was found. The evidence base consists of official policy documents from the venues themselves.
Reasoning Chain¶
- Nature prohibits AI authorship (January 2023, among the first); copy editing exempt from disclosure. [SRC01-E01, High reliability, High relevance]
- Science initially banned all AI use (January 2023) then reversed to permit AI assistance with detailed disclosure (November 2023). AI authorship remains prohibited. Unique requirement: full prompts in methods section. [SRC02-E01, High reliability, High relevance]
- ACM prohibits AI authorship; requires Acknowledgments disclosure; grammar/spelling exempt. [SRC03-E01, High reliability, High relevance]
- IEEE prohibits AI authorship; requires Acknowledgments disclosure with specifics (which AI, which sections, what level); editing disclosure recommended but not required. [SRC04-E01, High reliability, High relevance]
- NeurIPS: "Only humans are eligible to be authors." Disclosure required only when AI is part of methodology — the most permissive approach. [SRC05-E01, High reliability, High relevance]
- All Big 5 publishers (Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, SAGE) prohibit AI authorship with varying disclosure requirements. [SRC06-E01, Medium reliability, High relevance]
- JUDGMENT: The prohibition is absolute and universal. The disclosure requirements form a spectrum from permissive (NeurIPS: methodology only) through moderate (ACM/IEEE: acknowledgments) to strict (Science: full prompts in methods). This variation confirms H3.
Evidence Base Summary¶
| Source | Description | Reliability | Relevance | Key Finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01 | Nature | High | High | Prohibition; copy editing exempt |
| SRC02 | Science/AAAS | High | High | Reversed ban; requires prompts |
| SRC03 | ACM | High | High | Prohibition; acknowledgments disclosure |
| SRC04 | IEEE | High | High | Prohibition; section-specific disclosure |
| SRC05 | NeurIPS | High | High | Prohibition; methodology-only disclosure |
| SRC06 | Big 5 publishers | Medium | High | All prohibit; 5 different approaches |
Collection Synthesis¶
| Dimension | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Evidence quality | Robust — primary policy documents from all named venues |
| Source agreement | High on prohibition; Medium on disclosure specifics |
| Source independence | High — each venue issues its own policy independently |
| Outliers | Science's policy reversal is notable but the current position aligns with consensus |
Detail¶
The evidence shows a clear two-layer consensus: Layer 1 (AI cannot be an author) is absolute and universal. Layer 2 (disclosure requirements) is fragmented. The most analytically interesting finding is the spectrum of disclosure requirements, which reveals different philosophies: NeurIPS treats AI as a tool (disclose only when methodologically relevant), while Science treats AI use as substantive (disclose everything including prompts).
Gaps¶
| Missing Evidence | Impact on Assessment |
|---|---|
| ICML-specific policy (beyond inherited NeurIPS guidelines) | Minor — ICML 2025 publication ethics page was checked; limited AI-specific content |
| Enforcement data | Cannot assess how effectively policies are enforced |
| Non-English-language journal policies | All examined venues are English-language; global picture may differ |
Researcher Bias Check¶
Declared biases: No researcher profile provided for this run.
Influence assessment: The query names specific venues, which correctly focused the search. No significant bias risk identified.
Cross-References¶
| Entity | ID | File |
|---|---|---|
| Hypotheses | H1, H2, H3 | hypotheses/ |
| Sources | SRC01-SRC06 | sources/ |
| ACH Matrix | — | ach-matrix.md |
| Self-Audit | — | self-audit.md |