The CRITERIA reference framework is proposed herein to guide scientific journals in the development of their policies on the transparent, ethical, and responsible use of artificial intelligence in research and academic publishing.
The document is based on two premises: firstly, AI can improve efficiency and support tasks such as idea generation, design, analysis, synthesis, and refinement of texts; but secondly,
it can pose serious risks to scientific integrity, including plagiarism, fabricated references or data, factual errors, bias, and the erosion of critical thinking.
The CRITERIA proposal is structured around five key tenets: AI cannot be credited as an author, responsibility lies wholly with the human authors, any use of AI requires critical human oversight, the manuscript must retain the author’s voice and stylistic consistency, and any substantial use of AI must be disclosed in a transparent and traceable manner.
CRITERIA thereby enables a distinction between permitted uses that require mandatory disclosure, instrumental uses that do not require disclosure, and prohibited uses, always emphasizing that disclosure does not justify practices that violate academic integrity. We also provide operational guidelines for the identification of substantial use of AI, the application of a test for whether a given use is substantial, and how to avoid fatigue and stigma related to declaration.
Keywords
Artificial intelligence, Scientific publications, Research ethics, Academic integrity, Transparency, Traceability, Authorship, Disclosure of AI use, Academic communication.
CRITERIA PDF
Citation
Codina, Lluís; Freixa, Pere; Peña, Simón; Lopezosa, Carlos (2026). Criteria for Transparent, Ethical, and Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Publications (CRITERIA). Barcelona: Observatorio de Cibermedios (OCM) [Online Media Observatory]. DigiDoc Research Group (Pompeu Fabra University). [Ref. COC-05-ENG/2026]. https://doi.org/10.31009/coc.05.ENG.2026
Useful links
References
Albert, T.; Wager, E. on behalf of COPE Council. How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers (Version 1). COPE Council. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1
Amano, T.; Ramírez-Castañeda, V.; Berdejo-Espinola, V.; Borokini, I.; Chowdhury, S.; Golivets, M.; González-Trujillo, j. D.; Montaño-Centellas, F.; Paudel, K.; White, R. L. & Veríssimo, D. (2023) The manifold costs of being a non-native English speaker in science. PLoS Biol 21(7): e3002184. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002184
Bozkurt, A. (2024). GenAI et al: Cocreation, Authorship, Ownership, Academic Ethics and Integrity in a Time of Generative AI. Open Praxis, 16(1), pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.16.1.654
Cheng, A.; Calhoun, A. & Reedy, G. (2025). Artificial intelligence-assisted academic writing: recommendations for ethical use. Advances in Simulation, 10(22). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-025-00350-6
COPE Council (2023). COPE position: Authorship and AI. COPE Council. https://doi.org/10.24318/cCVRZBms
Christou, P. (2023). How to Use Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a Resource, Methodological and Analysis Tool in Qualitative Research? The Qualitative Report, 28(7), 1968-1980. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2023.6406
Elsevier. (2026). Generative AI policies for journals. Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/about/policiesand-standards/generative-ai-policies-for-journals
Ganguly, A.; Johri, A.; Ali, A. & McDonald, N. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence for academic research: evidence from guidance issued for researchers by higher education institutions in the United States. AI Ethics 5, 3917–3933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00688-7
Ganjavi, C.; Eppler, M.; Pekcan, A.; Biedermann, B.; Abreu, A.; Collins, G.; Gill, I. & Cacciamani, G. (2024). Publishers’ and journals’ instructions to authors on use of generative artificial intelligence in academic and scientific publishing: bibliometric analysis. The BMJ, 384. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-077192
Hosseini, M.; Gordijn, B.; Kaebnick, G.E. & Holmes, K. (2025). Disclosing generative AI use for writing assistance should be voluntary. Research Ethics, 21(4), 728-735.
https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161251345499
Hosseini, M.; Resnik, D. B. & Holmes, K. (2023). The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts. Research Ethics, 19(4), 449-465.
https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231180449
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2026). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. ICMJE.
https://www.icmje.org/recommendations
Resnik, D. B. & Hosseini, M. (2024). The Ethics of Using Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Research: New Guidance Needed for a New Tool. AI and Ethics, 5, 1499-1521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00493-8
Resnik, D. B. & Hosseini, M. (2025). Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: When should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary? Accountability in Research, 33(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2481949
SAGE Publishing. (2026). Artificial intelligence policy. SAGE. https://www.sagepub.com/journals/publication-ethics-policies/artificial-intelligence-policy
Springer Nature. (2026). Artificial Intelligence. Springer Nature. https://www.nature.com/natureportfolio/editorial-policies/ai
Suchikova, Y.; Tsybuliak, N.; Teixeira da Silva, J. A. & Nazarovets, S. (2026). GAIDeT (Generative AI Delegation Taxonomy): A taxonomy for humans to delegate tasks to generative artificial intelligence in scientific research and publishing. Accountability in Research, 33(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2544331
Taylor & Francis. (2024). AI Policy. Taylor & Francis. https://taylorandfrancis.com/our-policies/ai-policy/
Wiley. (2026). Best Practice Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics. Wiley. https://authors.wiley.com/ethics-guidelines/index.html
Xu, R.; Sun, Y.; Ren, M.; Guo, S.; Pan, R.; Lin, H.; Sun, L. & Han, X. (2024). AI for social science and social science of AI: A Survey. Information Processing & Management, 61(3).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103665
Yoo, J. (2025). Defining the Boundaries of AI Use in Scientific Writing: A Comparative Review of Editorial Policies. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 40. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e187
Zielinski, C.; Winker, M.A.; Aggarwal, R.; Ferris, L.E; Heinemann, M.; Lapeña, J.F.; Pai, S.A.; Ing, E.; Citrome, L.; Alam, M.; Voight, M. & Habibzadeh, F. (2023) Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts: WAME recommendations on chatbots and generative artificial intelligence in relation to scholarly publications. Colombia Médica, 54(3):e1015868. http://doi.org/10.25100/cm.v54i3.5868