R0029/2026-03-27/Q003/H1

Research	R0029 — Plural Voice Attribution
Run	2026-03-27
Query	Q003
Hypothesis	H1

Statement

All major venues prohibit AI authorship and require disclosure, with substantial consensus on the approach.

Status

Current: Partially supported

Every examined venue prohibits AI authorship — this is universal. However, calling the disclosure requirements "substantial consensus" overstates the uniformity. While all require some form of disclosure, the specifics vary significantly: where to disclose (Methods vs. Acknowledgments vs. dedicated statement), what to disclose (tool name only vs. full prompts), and what is exempt (grammar checks vs. all AI use).

Supporting Evidence

Evidence	Summary
SRC01-E01	Nature prohibits AI authorship; requires disclosure
SRC02-E01	Science prohibits AI authorship; requires acknowledgment and methods disclosure
SRC03-E01	ACM prohibits AI authorship; requires acknowledgment disclosure
SRC04-E01	IEEE prohibits AI authorship; requires acknowledgment disclosure
SRC05-E01	NeurIPS: only humans eligible for authorship; disclosure required if part of methodology
SRC06-E01	All Big 5 publishers prohibit AI authorship

Contradicting Evidence

Evidence	Summary
SRC06-E01	Disclosure specifics vary: Elsevier requires dedicated AI declaration; Springer Nature requires Methods section; Wiley requires Methods or Acknowledgments

Reasoning

H1 correctly identifies the universal prohibition but overstates the consensus on implementation. The prohibition is absolute; the disclosure requirements are fragmented. This makes H3 a more accurate characterization.

Relationship to Other Hypotheses

H1 captures the prohibition consensus correctly but misses the disclosure variation that H3 addresses. H2 is eliminated by the clear evidence of formal policies across all venues.