As scholars increasingly use AI in scholarly writing, journals and book publishers are starting to require disclosures of AI use. But these disclosures are sometimes unclear, difficult to comply with, and vague. How AI use affects article selection decisions remains uncertain.
I recently had terrific conversation about these issues with Andrew Guthrie Ferguson (GW Law) who looked into law review AI disclosure requirements.
Some challenges with any use of AI in scholarship include:
- The norms are still developing and are quite unstable. Certain AI uses that are acceptable now might be viewed with disdain later on. Scholars might regret having published an article using AI in the future if norms have changed to make the particular use of AI troublesome.
- It is often unclear how disclosure of AI use will affect article selection. Even if journals say it won’t, it still might lead to a bias.
- Using AI might trigger disclosure obligations about a lot of information that authors might not keep track of such as prompts, etc. When articles are submitted, it might not be easy to piece together all this information.
- Journals are just starting to adopt policies, so many more might have them in the future. Each one is different. Uses of AI now that are acceptable to journals might become unacceptable to others when the article is submitted for publication.
- Some policies exempt certain minor uses of AI, but others don’t. Any use of AI might trigger disclosure.
- As with many things, people will be judged based on quick takes that often ignore longer nuanced explanations. The use of AI might be fine with a full explanation, but will journal editors and other scholars take the time to read the full explanation?
- All this means that using AI is quite risky—even in a way that seems minor and acceptable today.
Here is some relevant information to the discussion:
Law Review AI Policies
The usage of AI, when it is approved by CLR and its editorial staff, must be clearly disclosed within the piece. As a general rule, disclosures of AI usage must be clearly made in the body of the piece, and not kept within the footnotes or acknowledgements. Author must additionally disclose the AI model(s) used, the prompt(s) used, input(s) used, and output(s) received; this information may be written into the footnotes or acknowledgements, pending CLR editorial approval for each specific instance. Exceptions to this disclosure requirement may apply for approved AI models as described in III, subject to CLR approval. Because technological tools cannot take accountability for the content of the work, AI tools cannot be credited with authorship of any CLR publication.
Georgetown Law Journal AI Policy:
1. The Georgetown Law Journal is committed to keeping human-written work at the core of legal scholarship. The Author represents and warrants that (i) the Author is the sole author of the Work; (ii) the Work’s written text—its above-the-line content,[1] below-the-line text,[2] and below-the-line citation parentheticals—[3] has not been written with assistance from generative artificial intelligence in a manner that would constitute plagiarism—including, but not limited to, copying and pasting from generative artificial intelligence;[4] (iii) if the Author used research assistance from generative artificial intelligence, any content produced from the research was then verified by a human researcher or writer; (iv) the Author has full power and authority to enter into this Publication License and to grant to the Journal the rights and licenses described in Section I; and (v) the Author has not previously granted or otherwise conveyed any such rights or licenses to any other person or entity.
2. The Georgetown Law Journal understands that many modern legal research tools incorporate artificial intelligence and the Journal acknowledges the modern ubiquity of using these tools; however, the Author understands that the Journal retains the right to void this Agreement should the Work contain clear signs of unverified generative artificial intelligence usage that is inconsistent with Paragraph III.1—including, but not limited to, hallucinated cases or quotations.
[1] “Above-the-line content” refers to all content that appears above the citation division on the page—including, but not limited to, textual sentences, visual diagrams, and charts.
[2] “Below-the-line text” refers to all textual sentences within footnotes and excludes citation sentences.
[3] “Below-the-line citation parentheticals” refers to all explanatory phrases within parentheses at the end of a legal citation.
[4] The Georgetown Law Journal does not consider spell check or grammar check to be generative artificial intelligence. Brainstorming with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence is not prohibited.
U. Pennsylvania Law Review AI Policy:
Beginning with Volume 175, the Law Review requires authors to disclose any use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the preparation of their submissions. Said disclosure should be provided as a succinct description within or as an addendum to the cover letter, addressing the following:
Which AI tools, if any, were employed;
How these tools assisted in the research process; and
How these tools assisted in drafting or revising the manuscript.
Authors should note that disclosure of AI usage will not, in and of itself, weigh against consideration of their submissions.
Virginia Law Review AI Policy:
The Virginia Law Review requires authors to disclose the use of AI upon submitting their article for review. We emphasize that the use of AI is not disqualifying. Disclosure of AI facilitates our ability to thoroughly evaluate a piece, and it promotes trust between the author and the journal.
Authors must disclose any substantive use of AI. By “substantive,” we mean the use of AI to support an author’s factual assertions, legal claims, or overall argument, such as generating relevant cases, writing or revising textual sentences, or drafting parentheticals. The use of grammar or spelling assistance services such as Grammarly or spell-checkers is not considered “substantive.”
Authors should err on the side of disclosure. The content selection committee prefers more detailed disclosures that clearly identify where and how authors used AI. The more detailed the disclosure, the more confidently we can extend a publication offer.
Authors must separate their disclosure into the following categories:
- Research: a. E.g., identifying relevant cases and quotations, summarizing relevant secondary sources, summarizing areas of law for background knowledge, generating arguments and counterarguments
- Writing: a. E.g., drafting or revising main body text, drafting footnote text, drafting explanatory parentheticals
- Other: a. E.g., conducting statistical analysis, generating tables/graphs, generating images
Within each category, authors should also indicate what AI tools they used and the extent to which they verified or built upon AI-generated material. Authors may find sample disclosures on the next page.
We reserve the right to rescind an offer for publication if, during the editing process, we discover undisclosed AI usage that compromises the integrity of the piece, including/especially hallucinated sources or quotations. If appropriate, we may also require the disclosure of AI usage in a star footnote.
Oxford University Press Study
A study by Oxford University Press, “Disclosing AI Use in Academic Research: A Global Study” (Sept. 2026) has many interesting findings about the developing norms around the disclosure of AI across various fields. Here are a few excerpts:
* * * *
Daniel J. Solove is the Bernard Professor of Intellectual Property and Technology Law at the George Washington University Law School. He is the founder of TeachPrivacy, a company that provides workforce privacy, cybersecurity security, and AI training to companies and organizations around the world. He is the author of 10+ books and 100+ articles.
You can follow his events, writings, training, cartoons, and resources by subscribing to his free weekly newsletter.
Subscribe to Solove’s Free Substack
A supplement to Solove’s regular newsletter with more in-depth discussions
