ACS Catalysis AI Policy: ChatGPT and Generative AI Disclosure Rules for ACS Catalysis Authors
ACS Catalysis requires AI disclosure under ACS rules. AI cannot be an author. This guide covers where to disclose, what to disclose, and the consequences of non-compliance for ACS Catalysis submissions.
Readiness scan
AI policy covered? See what ACS Catalysis reviewers are likely to push back on.
The AI policy governs disclosure, not how the science is judged. Run the Free Readiness Scan with ACS Catalysis as your target to see desk-rejection risk, likely reviewer concerns, and journal fit.
Quick answer: The ACS Catalysis AI policy follows ACS's rules calibrated to mechanistic catalysis advance with reproducible experimental protocol submissions.
AI tools can be used for manuscript preparation, but ACS policy asks that all use of AI tools be disclosed within the submission: in the Acknowledgments section for text or image generation, and in the Methods or another appropriate section for more substantial use. AI cannot be listed as an author of any ACS Catalysis paper. ACS policy says AI-generated images should not be used in Table of Contents graphics, and a brief description of AI use belongs in the caption of any other figure made with AI.
ACS editors can decide that AI use in a submission is too extensive, including AI tools used to generate substantive commentary or extensive literature reviews, which may result in manuscript rejection or a request to revise to remove or reduce the AI-generated portions.
Run the ACS Catalysis submission readiness check which includes an automated AI-disclosure audit, or work through this guide manually. Need broader context? See the ACS Catalysis journal overview.
The Manusights ACS Catalysis readiness scan. This guide tells you what ACS Catalysis's editors look for when verifying AI disclosure at desk-screen. The scan tells you whether your manuscript has the disclosure language required by the current journal policy before you submit. We have reviewed manuscripts targeting ACS Catalysis and peer venues; the named patterns below are patterns we check against the publisher's public AI policy and common editorial-screening risks.
60-day money-back guarantee. Your manuscript is not used for model training, and access is limited to the review workflow.
Editorial detail (for desk-screen calibration). Verify the current Editor-in-Chief and handling-editor list on the journal's editorial-team page before quoting any name in a submission cover letter. Submission portal: ACS Publishing Center. Manuscript constraints: Article abstracts are typically limited to 300 words, and Letters are restricted to 2,000 words with an abstract under 100 words.
We reviewed ACS's AI policy framework against current ACS Catalysis author guidelines (accessed 2026-10-09); evidence basis includes both publicly documented ACS policy and our internal anonymized submission corpus. The applicable limits at ACS Catalysis are: Article abstracts are typically limited to 300 words, and Letters are restricted to 2,000 words with an abstract under 100 words.
The ACS Catalysis author guidelines do not publish a main-text word limit for Articles (check the article-type limits in the latest author guidelines). The named editorial-culture quirk: ACS Catalysis reviewers expect detailed control experiments and explicit mechanistic assignment; computational-only papers without experimental validation get longer rounds.
What does ACS Catalysis's AI policy require?
ACS Catalysis authors should check four policy areas under ACS's current AI framework before submission:
Rule 1: Disclose every AI tool used in manuscript preparation
ACS policy says all use of AI tools should be disclosed within the submission. Use of AI tools for text or image generation goes in the Acknowledgments section with a description of when and how the tools were used; for more substantial use, give full details in the Methods or another appropriate section. Naming the tool and its version or access date is good practice, even though the policy does not spell that out. Examples of use to disclose at ACS Catalysis:
- For ACS Catalysis-targeted manuscripts addressing mechanistic catalysis advance with reproducible experimental protocol: using ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or similar to draft, polish, or edit manuscript text passing through ACS Catalysis editorial review
- For ACS Catalysis submissions: using AI to generate boilerplate text for limitations, ethics statements, or ACS Catalysis-specific response-to-reviewers letters that cite ACS's framework
- For ACS Catalysis submissions: using AI to translate manuscript text into English from another language, which is a use of AI tools for text generation
- For ACS Catalysis literature reviews: using AI for citation discovery or summarizing prior ACS Catalysis work; ACS's policy applies regardless of citation context
- For ACS Catalysis analytical pipelines: AI-assisted code generation should be described in the Methods or another appropriate section, particularly when code affects analysis
Examples that are usually not AI-tool use in the sense of the policy (ACS does not publish a list of exemptions, so disclose if in doubt):
- At ACS Catalysis, using grammar/spell checkers (Word) for line-level edits, when used without generative AI features for new manuscript content
- For ACS Catalysis submissions, using reference managers (Zotero, EndNote) for citation formatting against ACS's style guide
- For ACS Catalysis statistical analysis, using established statistical software (R, Stata, SPSS) where the algorithm is the established tool documented in ACS Catalysis's methodological norm, not a generative AI
Rule 2: AI cannot be an author
No AI tool can be listed as an author of a ACS Catalysis paper, particularly for mechanistic catalysis advance with reproducible experimental protocol-class submissions. Under ACS's policy, AI tools do not qualify for authorship because, as non-person entities, they can neither take responsibility for published content nor assent to co-authorship. This rule is consistent across ACS-published journals.
Rule 3: AI-generated figures need a caption description, and are not allowed in ToC graphics
ACS policy says a brief description of AI use should be included in the figure caption to explain to readers how the image was created. AI-generated images should not be used within Table of Contents (ToC) graphics, because those have no caption next to the image where the use of AI can be explained. AI image generation in journal cover art is permitted but should be disclosed in the cover art caption, naming the specific tool(s). Figures that present data should come from the actual research: the ACS Ethical Guidelines require authors to give an accurate and thorough account of the research conducted. An AI-made conceptual diagram, such as a schematic of a hypothesized mechanism, needs the caption disclosure and should be labelled as conceptual.
Rule 4: Reviewers must not put manuscripts into AI tools
ACS asks for the expert opinion of consulted reviewers and expects those opinions to be solely the reviewer's. Disclosing any part of a submission or the peer review report to a text generation service or any other third-party tool breaches confidentiality and violates the ACS Ethical Guidelines. Authors should not assume that reviewer-side AI rules are identical at other publishers.
How does ACS Catalysis's AI policy compare to peer journals?
Rule | ACS Catalysis stance | ACS default | Policy basis |
|---|---|---|---|
AI authorship | Prohibited | Prohibited | Authorship/accountability |
Disclosure location | Acknowledgments for text or image generation; Methods or another section for substantial use | Same | Transparency |
AI-generated figures | Allowed with a caption description; not allowed in ToC graphics | Same | Graphics |
Reviewer AI use | Reviewers must not submit manuscript details to AI tools | Same | Peer-review confidentiality |
Editorial discretion | Editor may reject or request revision if AI use is too extensive | Same | Editorial discretion |
Source: ACS author guidance (accessed 2026-10-09) plus ACS Catalysis author guidelines.
What does AI disclosure look like in a ACS Catalysis manuscript?
Example disclosure language for ACS Catalysis submissions (the first example belongs in the Acknowledgments, the second in the Methods):
"For our mechanistic catalysis advance with reproducible experimental protocol-focused manuscript at ACS Catalysis, we used ChatGPT-4o (OpenAI, version dated October 2024) to polish English-language phrasing in the Introduction and Discussion sections. We did not use generative AI for data analysis, figure generation, or substantive manuscript content. All authors reviewed and edited the AI-assisted text and take responsibility for the final manuscript."
Or, for AI-assisted code:
"For this ACS Catalysis submission addressing mechanistic catalysis advance with reproducible experimental protocol, initial Python code for the Bayesian regression analysis was drafted with Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Anthropic, version dated December 2024). All code was reviewed, modified, and validated by the authors before use; the final version is available at [repository URL]. Statistical inference was performed using the established R package brms."
What does NOT meet ACS's disclosure request:
- For ACS Catalysis addressing mechanistic catalysis advance with reproducible experimental protocol: "AI tools were used in manuscript preparation." Too vague: ACS asks for a description of when and how the tools were used, and naming the specific tool, its version and the specific use case is good practice
- "We acknowledge AI assistance." (A bare statement with no description of when and how the tools were used; ACS asks for that description in the Acknowledgments.)
- "ChatGPT helped write this paper." (Insufficient detail on use case)
- No disclosure when AI was used (publication-ethics violation)
Desk-screen risks we see before submission
For ACS Catalysis-targeted manuscripts, the patterns below are common AI-policy risk areas to check against the publisher's current guidance before submission.
AI disclosure missing despite obvious AI-assisted phrasing. Substantive AI-assisted drafting without a required disclosure can trigger an editorial query. Check whether your manuscript reads as AI-assisted
AI disclosure placed in the wrong manuscript location. ACS asks for disclosure in the Acknowledgments section for text or image generation, with full details in the Methods or another appropriate section for more substantial use. Publisher policies differ on where AI disclosure belongs, and a disclosure left only in the cover letter can create an avoidable submission query. Check whether your AI disclosure is in the right section
Generic disclosure language without tool name and version. ACS asks for a description of when and how the tools were used, and naming the specific tool, its version (or access date), and the specific use case is good practice. "AI tools were used" without specifics is too vague. Check whether your AI disclosure has the required specificity
What is the ACS Catalysis AI-policy compliance timeline?
Stage | Duration | What happens |
|---|---|---|
Author drafts AI disclosure | 30-60 minutes | Identify all AI use, gather tool versions, write the Acknowledgments or Methods paragraph |
Co-author review of disclosure | 1-2 days | All authors confirm the disclosure is complete and accurate |
Editorial desk-screen check | 1-2 weeks | ACS Catalysis's editorial team checks the disclosure against the manuscript when policy review is triggered |
Editorial query (if disclosure incomplete) | 5-10 days | Editor requests revision before sending to peer review |
Reviewer AI-disclosure check | During peer review | Reviewers verify the disclosure matches the manuscript style |
Source: Manusights internal review of ACS Catalysis-targeted submissions, 2025 cohort.
Submit If
- For ACS Catalysis submissions on mechanistic catalysis advance with reproducible experimental protocol: the manuscript documents substantive generative-AI use with the tool name, version or access date, specific use case, and disclosure location required by the current journal policy
- For ACS Catalysis: no AI tool is listed as an author; all listed authors meet authorship criteria and take responsibility for the final manuscript
- For ACS Catalysis: figures and schematics representing original research data come from the actual research, with any AI-assisted image or figure workflow checked against the current journal image policy
- For ACS Catalysis submissions: the disclosure makes clear that human authors reviewed the AI-assisted material and take responsibility for the final manuscript
Readiness check
Run the scan while the topic is in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Think Twice If
- The manuscript contains substantive AI-assisted drafting but no disclosure; this can trigger an editorial query if the journal requires disclosure for that use case.
- The AI disclosure is placed in a section the current journal policy does not recognize.
- The disclosure language is generic without naming the tool, version or access date, and use case; journals may query or return manuscripts with this gap.
- Any figure, schematic, or image workflow used generative AI without being checked against the current journal image policy.
Manusights submission-corpus signal for ACS Catalysis.
Of the manuscripts our team screened before submission to ACS Catalysis and peer venues in 2025, the AI-policy compliance gap most consistent across the cohort is generic disclosure language without tool-version specificity. In our analysis of anonymized ACS Catalysis-targeted submissions, manuscripts with complete AI disclosure (tool name, version, specific use case, all-author confirmation) clear desk-screen at the same rate as manuscripts without AI use; manuscripts with incomplete or missing disclosure trigger editorial queries that add 1-2 weeks to the timeline.
ACS Catalysis follows the publisher's public AI policy, but authors should verify the current journal page before submission because AI-use rules, disclosure locations, and image guidance continue to change.
What can ACS Catalysis authors do to stay ahead of AI policy changes?
ACS's AI policy framework continues to evolve as 2026 brings new ICMJE recommendations, COPE guidance refinements, and journal-specific clarifications. ACS Catalysis authors targeting mechanistic catalysis advance with reproducible experimental protocol submissions should track three signals throughout 2026:
Policy updates from ACS. The publisher's public AI policy guidance is updated over time (the version we read was last updated December 13, 2024). ACS Catalysis authors who pre-register their disclosure language at submission time tend to face fewer revisions during the 2026 transition period than authors who write boilerplate disclosures.
Field-specific clarifications for mechanistic catalysis advance with reproducible experimental protocol. Different research domains see different AI use patterns. ACS Catalysis's editorial team has been refining what counts as "substantive AI use" versus "ancillary AI assistance" for mechanistic catalysis advance with reproducible experimental protocol work. Authors who err on the side of more disclosure rather than less avoid the publication-ethics gray zone.
Reviewer confidentiality rules. ACS tells reviewers not to submit manuscript details, correspondence or referee reports to AI tools. Authors should not expect that reviewer reports were produced by feeding their manuscript into third-party AI services.
- Manusights internal preview corpus (150+ ACS Catalysis-targeted manuscripts, 2025 cohort)
Competitor pricing and feature claims on this page reflect publicly listed information as of 2026-05-14. Pricing and features may change; verify against each vendor's current product page before decision-making.
Frequently asked questions
Yes, with disclosure. ACS Catalysis follows the ACS AI Best Practices and Policies, which say all use of AI tools should be disclosed within the submission. Use of AI tools for text or image generation is disclosed in the Acknowledgments section with a description of when and how the tools were used, and more substantial use is described in the Methods or another appropriate section. AI cannot be listed as an author, and the human authors are responsible for all submitted content.
ACS policy asks for disclosure in the manuscript's Acknowledgments section, with a description of when and how the tools were used. For more substantial use, give full details in the Methods or another appropriate section. Naming the tool and its version or access date is good practice, and it helps to make clear that the human authors reviewed the final content. ACS editors can also decide that AI use is too extensive, which may lead to rejection or a request to revise.
Only with disclosure, and not in Table of Contents graphics. ACS policy says AI-generated images should not be used in Table of Contents graphics, and a brief description of AI use should go in the caption of any other figure made with AI. Figures that present data should come from the actual research, because the ACS Ethical Guidelines require an accurate and thorough account of the research conducted.
ACS Catalysis can treat undisclosed substantive AI use as a publication-ethics problem. The response depends on the publisher policy, the timing, and whether the scientific record is affected.
ACS Catalysis follows the ACS-wide policy, and the same disclosure wording appears in the journal's Author Guidelines. The policy covers AI authorship, disclosure, graphics, editorial discretion and reviewer confidentiality. Other publishers can differ in disclosure location, in what they allow in figures, and in how disclosures are checked.
Sources
- ACS AI policy (accessed 2026-10-09)
- ACS Catalysis author guidelines (accessed 2026-10-09)
- ICMJE recommendations on AI use (accessed 2026-05-08)
- COPE guidance on AI in research publication (accessed 2026-05-08)
Free guide
AI cannot be an author. None of the 49 policies we checked allows it.
Not a co-author, not an acknowledged contributor with a byline, not "with assistance from". What they do require is a disclosure, and the wording matters. The guide has the statement filled in, with what each publisher asks for beside it.
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Private API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.
Put the guidance to work
Choose the practical next step for your research.
Start with the question in front of you, or use the guided learning path when you want a clearer view of the full publishing process.
Where to go next
Start here
Same journal, next question
- ACS Catalysis Submission Guide: Scope, Format & Tips (2026)
- How to Avoid Desk Rejection at ACS Catalysis
- Is ACS Catalysis a Good Journal? What Catalysis Researchers Need to Know
- ACS Catalysis Review Time: What Authors Can Actually Expect
- ACS Catalysis Response to Reviewers: How to Write a Rebuttal That Wins (2026)
- Rejected from ACS Catalysis? The 6 Best Journals to Submit Next