ACS Nano AI Policy: ChatGPT and Generative AI Disclosure Rules for ACS Nano Authors

ACS Nano 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 asks for a description of when and how AI tools were used; documenting the tool name and its version or access date is good practice. ACS's policy places the brief disclosure in the Acknowledgments section, with fuller details in the Methods or another appropriate section for more substantial use, rather than in the cover letter. Examples that REQUIRE disclosure at ACS Nano:

• For ACS Nano-targeted manuscripts addressing nanoscale advance: using ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or similar to draft, polish, or edit manuscript text passing through ACS Nano editorial review

• For ACS Nano submissions: using AI to generate boilerplate text for limitations, ethics statements, or ACS Nano-specific response-to-reviewers letters that cite ACS's framework

• For ACS Nano submissions: using AI to translate manuscript text into English from another language, described in the same way (when and how the translation tool was used)

• For ACS Nano literature reviews: using AI for citation discovery or summarizing prior ACS Nano work; ACS's policy applies regardless of citation context

• For ACS Nano analytical pipelines: AI-assisted code generation requires Methods or code disclosure under the current publisher policy, particularly when code affects analysis

Examples that are not generative AI use (ACS's policy asks for disclosure of AI tools and lists no exemptions, so disclose if in doubt):

• At ACS Nano, using grammar/spell checkers (Word) for line-level edits, when used without generative AI features for new manuscript content

• For ACS Nano submissions, using reference managers (Zotero, EndNote) for citation formatting against ACS's style guide

• For ACS Nano statistical analysis, using established statistical software (R, Stata, SPSS) where the algorithm is the established tool documented in ACS Nano'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 Nano paper, particularly for nanoscale advance-class submissions. Under ACS's policy: authorship requires the ability to take responsibility for the content, agree to be accountable for accuracy, and to consent to publication. AI tools cannot do any of these in ACS Nano's editorial framework. This rule is consistent across all ACS-published journals and applied at ACS Nano's desk-screen.

Rule 3: AI use in figures must be disclosed in the caption

ACS's AI policy asks for a brief description of AI use in the figure caption so readers know how the image was created. AI-generated images should not be used within Table of Contents graphics, and AI image generation in journal cover art is permitted but should be disclosed in the cover art caption, naming the specific tool. The underlying data visualization must still come from the actual research, and AI-generated diagrams used for conceptual illustrations (e.g., a schematic of a hypothesized mechanism) should say so in the caption.

Rule 4: Reviewers must not upload manuscripts to AI tools

ACS's policy says reviewers must not disclose any part of a submission or the peer review report to a text generation service or other third-party tool; doing so breaches the confidentiality of peer review and violates the ACS Ethical Guidelines.

ACS asks for a brief disclosure in the Acknowledgments and fuller details in the Methods or another appropriate section for more substantial use. Acceptable disclosure language for ACS Nano submissions:

"For our nanoscale advance-focused manuscript at ACS Nano, 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 Nano submission addressing nanoscale advance, 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 pass ACS Nano's desk-screen:

• For ACS Nano addressing nanoscale advance: "AI tools were used in manuscript preparation." Too vague for ACS editorial review of ACS Nano submissions; ACS asks for a description of when and how the tools were used, and naming the specific tool and use case is good practice

• "We acknowledge AI assistance in the Acknowledgments." (The Acknowledgments are the place ACS names for AI disclosure, but the statement still needs a description of when and how the tools were used.)

• "ChatGPT helped write this paper." (Insufficient detail on use case)

• No disclosure when AI was used (publication-ethics violation)

For ACS Nano-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's policy asks for the disclosure in the Acknowledgments, with fuller details in the Methods or another appropriate section for more substantial use; publisher policies differ, so do not assume another publisher's location applies. A misplaced disclosure 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 use case is good practice. "AI tools were used" without specifics is too vague. Check whether your AI disclosure has the required specificity

Source: Manusights internal review of ACS Nano-targeted submissions, 2025 cohort.

ACS's AI policy framework continues to evolve as 2026 brings new ICMJE recommendations, COPE guidance refinements, and journal-specific clarifications. ACS Nano authors targeting nanoscale advance submissions should track three signals throughout 2026:

Policy updates from ACS. The publisher's public AI policy guidance is updated over time. ACS Nano 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 nanoscale advance. Different research domains see different AI use patterns. ACS's policy gives editors discretion to decide when AI use is too extensive, including AI used to generate substantive commentary or extensive literature reviews. Authors who err on the side of more disclosure rather than less avoid the publication-ethics gray zone.

Reviewer rules. ACS's policy bars reviewers from disclosing any part of a submission or the peer review report to a text generation service or other third-party tool.

• Manusights internal preview corpus (150+ ACS Nano-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.