PofoliaShared via Pofolia

AI & Society· 2026Q1

Against mandatory prompt disclosure in AI-assisted scholarship

Brian David Earp, Udo Schüklenk, Julian Savulescu, Sebastian Porsdam Mann

Short summary

Researchers argue against mandatory full disclosure of AI prompts and outputs for scholarly writing assistance, proposing a proportionate framework instead.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Mandatory Full Inclusion (MFI) of AI prompts and outputs for scholarly writing is proposed but argued against.
  • MFI is deemed difficult to enforce, easy to evade, burdensome, and poorly suited for editors/reviewers.
  • Risks of MFI include discouraging beneficial AI use, penalizing careful consultation, and disadvantaging scholars.
  • A proportionate framework is proposed: targeted disclosure for validity/reproducibility, voluntary documentation, and existing misconduct procedures.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Abstract Large language models (LLMs) are becoming routine as tools for drafting, editing, and revising scholarly manuscripts, raising difficult questions about how much transparency is needed to assess research integrity, authorship claims, and accountability. In response, some authors have proposed that researchers who use LLMs in manuscript preparation should be required to submit the prompts they used, together with the generated outputs, as supplemental material. We support detailed disclosure when it is needed to assess the scientific validity or reproducibility of a study, for example where LLMs are used in data analysis, coding, literature synthesis, or the production of figures. We argue, however, against Mandatory Full Inclusion (MFI) of prompts and outputs for ordinary writing assistance. Such a policy would, we suggest, be difficult to enforce, easy for dishonest users to evade, burdensome for careful users to follow, and poorly suited to the capacities of editors and peer reviewers. It would also risk discouraging beneficial uses of LLMs, penalizing careful multi-model consultation, distorting how researchers interact with AI systems, and disadvantaging scholars who already face undue or unnecessary barriers in academic publishing, including scholars at under-resourced institutions. More generally, an MFI policy would impose a level of surveillance on AI-assisted writing that has no clear analog in ordinary human collaboration. We propose instead a proportionate prompt-and-output disclosure framework: targeted disclosure where reproducibility or validity requires it; voluntary documentation where authors wish to demonstrate their contribution; and continued reliance on authorship attestation, contributor statements, and misconduct procedures where warranted. This approach better aligns transparency with the risks posed by LLM use in scholarly writing, while also minimizing surveillance-related harms and inefficiencies.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. AI & Society, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Safety Research

Safety ResearchSocial Sciences