As AI assistance becomes routine in research and writing, transparency about how it was used has become an expectation rather than an option. Journals, newsrooms, and employers increasingly require a disclosure statement, and getting the wording and placement right matters. The AI Output Source Attributor generates that statement for the venue you are writing for.
How it works
Enter the AI tool you used and select what it actually did — drafting, editing, brainstorming, research summarization, code, data analysis, translation, or image generation. Choose whether the work is an academic paper, a piece of journalism, or a corporate report, and indicate whether the output was human-reviewed.
The tool then produces appropriately styled text. For academic work it generates a methods or acknowledgement statement of the form used by major publishers, plus an in-text note with the access date. For journalism it produces an editor’s note and a short byline tag. For corporate reports it produces a disclosure footnote and a cover-page tag. In every case, when you mark the output as reviewed, it adds the crucial line that the human authors take full responsibility for the content.
Why the contribution type changes the disclosure wording
A disclosure for a tool used only to polish grammar reads very differently from one where the tool produced the initial draft. The contribution type you select determines the scope of the disclosure:
- Drafting — The AI wrote a substantial first draft. Disclosure should name this explicitly: “A draft of this article was generated using [tool] and subsequently revised and fact-checked by the authors.”
- Editing and language refinement — The AI improved clarity, corrected grammar, or adjusted tone. This is the lightest use case: “Language editing assistance was provided by [tool].”
- Research and summarisation — The AI was used to summarise source material or surface relevant literature. Disclosure should note that human authors verified all cited claims.
- Code generation — The AI wrote or substantially contributed to code. This is increasingly common and increasingly required to disclose, especially in academic computer science venues.
- Image generation — AI-generated images require explicit disclosure under most editorial and academic policies, and often must not be presented as original photography.
What reviewers and editors actually look for
Major publishers and most newsrooms want two things clearly stated in an AI disclosure: what the tool did, and who is accountable. The “what it did” part is what the contribution type provides. The accountability part — that a named human author reviewed, verified, and takes responsibility for the content — is the most commonly missing element in submitted disclosures. The generated statement includes this language when you indicate the output was reviewed.
AI tools cannot be authors under current publisher guidance (COPE, ICMJE, and equivalents) because they cannot take legal or ethical responsibility for the work. Always list AI tools in the acknowledgements or methods section, never in the author list.
Disclosure norms vary by venue, so confirm the specific journal’s or employer’s current policy. Use the generated text as a correctly formed starting point and adjust to the required heading or formatting of your submission system.