Advanced Materials AI Policy: ChatGPT and Generative AI Disclosure Rules for Advanced Materials Authors
Advanced Materials requires AI disclosure under Wiley rules. AI cannot be an author. This guide covers where to disclose, what to disclose, and the consequences of non-compliance for Advanced Materials submissions.
Next step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the guide or checklist that matches this page's intent before you ask for a manuscript-level diagnostic.
Advanced Materials at a glance
Key metrics to place the journal before deciding whether it fits your manuscript and career goals.
What makes this journal worth targeting
- Advanced Materials's scope and readership determine whether the journal is a useful target.
- Scope specificity matters more than headline metrics for most manuscript decisions.
- Acceptance rate of ~6% means fit determines most outcomes.
When to look elsewhere
- When your paper sits at the edge of the journal's stated scope, borderline fit rarely improves after submission.
- If timeline matters: Advanced Materials takes ~40 days to first decision. A faster-turnaround journal may suit a grant or job deadline better.
- If open access is required by your funder, verify the journal's OA agreements before submitting.
Quick answer: The Advanced Materials AI policy is Wiley's publisher-wide AI guidance applied to an Advanced Portfolio materials journal. Wiley says authors must disclose AI Technologies when submitting to Wiley-published journals, keep documentation of tool purpose and human verification, and place disclosure where readers expect it: Acknowledgments for drafting/editing, Methods for research methods, data analysis, code, or literature review, and figure captions for AI-created or AI-edited visuals.
AI tools can be used for manuscript preparation, but substantive generative-AI use must be disclosed in the location the publisher requires; basic grammar, formatting, and word-choice support may be treated differently. AI cannot replace author responsibility for an Advanced Materials paper. Human authors remain accountable for the accuracy of claims, citations, figures, analysis, and benchmark comparisons.
Advanced Materials editors can treat undisclosed substantive AI use as a publication-ethics problem, with the response depending on the publisher policy, the timing, and whether the scientific record is affected.
Run the Advanced Materials submission readiness check which includes an automated AI-disclosure audit, or work through this guide manually. Need broader context? See the Advanced Materials journal overview.
Advanced Materials AI policy snapshot
The Manusights Advanced Materials readiness scan. This guide tells you what Advanced Materials editors look for when verifying AI disclosure before peer review. The scan tells you whether your manuscript has the disclosure language required by the current Wiley policy before you submit.
In our pre-submission review work for Advanced Materials and sister journals, the risky cases are usually not authors who used a spelling tool. They are materials papers where AI touched the benchmark table, synthesis workflow diagram, microscopy-image handling, code for property prediction, or literature-comparison logic without a precise disclosure. We check whether the AI-use statement matches the actual evidence surfaces in the paper: abstract novelty, graphical abstract, figure captions, Methods, code availability, supplemental characterization, and the cover letter. The most common mismatch is a disclosure written as if AI only polished language when the draft shows AI-assisted comparison, visualization, or analysis work.
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 Advanced Materials editorial-team list on the journal page before quoting any name in a submission cover letter. Submission portal: Wiley journal page; the legacy/in-flight Editorial Manager endpoint responds at editorialmanager.com/adma, but authors should verify the current Wiley route before upload. Manuscript constraints: 200-word abstract limit and 8,000-word main-text cap.
Reviewed July 7, 2026 against Wiley's AI guidelines for researchers, Advanced Materials author guidance, ICMJE recommendations, COPE AI-authorship guidance, and Manusights pre-submission patterns for materials-science manuscripts. Wiley's current AI guidance applies across Wiley-published journals, including 5 sister journals in the Advanced Portfolio that materials authors often compare: Advanced Science, Advanced Functional Materials, Advanced Energy Materials, Small, and Advanced Healthcare Materials.
The manuscript word limit at this journal is 8,000 words for main text (verify article-type-specific caps in the latest author guidelines). The named editorial-culture quirk: Advanced Materials editors require quantified comparison to state-of-the-art benchmarks.
What does Advanced Materials AI policy require?
Advanced Materials authors should check four policy areas under Wiley's current AI framework before submission:
Rule 1: Disclose AI use where Wiley expects to see it
Authors should document substantive generative-AI use with the tool name, version or access date, and how it was used. Wiley's current author guidance places disclosure by use case: Acknowledgments for AI-assisted drafting, editing, translation, or formatting; Methods for research methodology, data collection, analysis, code, or literature review; and figure captions for AI-generated or AI-edited visual content. Examples that require disclosure at Advanced Materials:
- using ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or similar to draft, restructure, translate, or substantially edit manuscript text that will pass through Advanced Materials editorial review
- using AI to generate or revise limitations, data-availability language, response-to-reviewers text, or cover-letter claims tied to an Advanced Materials submission
- using AI to translate manuscript text into English from another language, with the source language and translation chain documented
- using AI for citation discovery, automated literature screening, or summarizing prior Advanced Materials and Advanced Portfolio work
- using AI-assisted code, image processing, regression scripts, property-prediction models, or data-visualization workflows that affect the reported results
Examples that do NOT require AI disclosure:
- At Advanced Materials, using grammar/spell checkers (Word) for line-level edits, when used without generative AI features for new manuscript content
- For Advanced Materials submissions, using reference managers (Zotero, EndNote) for citation formatting against Wiley's style guide
- For Advanced Materials statistical analysis, using established statistical software (R, Stata, SPSS) where the algorithm is the established tool documented in Advanced Materials methodological norms, not a generative AI
Rule 2: AI cannot carry authorship responsibility
No AI tool can carry author responsibility for an Advanced Materials paper. Wiley's policy keeps human authors accountable for the material and any technologies or sources used in creating it. For Advanced Materials, this matters because claims often depend on precise benchmark comparisons, image evidence, device metrics, and synthesis or characterization details that an AI tool cannot verify.
Rule 3: AI image, figure, and visual rules are stricter than text polishing
Wiley requires disclosure when AI is used for visual creation or editing. For Advanced Materials, treat figure work as higher risk than prose because figures often carry the core evidence: microscopy, spectroscopy, device performance, stability curves, and benchmark plots.
- AI-assisted data visualizations can be allowed when they use the authors' underlying data, are accurate, and are disclosed.
- AI-generated or AI-edited conceptual illustrations and workflow diagrams require disclosure, accuracy checks, and licensing checks.
- AI-edited photographs are not permitted in Wiley journals. AI may be used to analyze photographs as part of a research method, but that use belongs in Methods and must preserve verifiable evidence.
- Factual or evidential images, including images supporting research results, diagnostic evidence, or technical claims, must not be generated, modified, or enhanced with AI.
For an Advanced Materials submission, the practical rule is simple: if AI touched a figure, schematic, image, graph, benchmark plot, microscopy image, or composite image that appears in the manuscript, disclose the tool, version or date, role, and human verification route in the figure caption or Methods as appropriate.
Rule 4: Disclose AI use in peer review participation
Reviewer AI-use rules are publisher-specific and can change quickly. Reviewers must follow the journal's confidentiality and AI-use policy; authors should not assume that reviewer-side AI rules are identical across journals in the same portfolio.
How does Advanced Materials AI policy compare to peer journals?
Rule | Advanced Materials stance | Wiley default | Policy basis |
|---|---|---|---|
AI authorship responsibility | Human authors remain accountable | Human authors remain accountable | Authorship and accountability |
Drafting or editing disclosure | Acknowledgments when AI assists drafting, editing, translation, or formatting | Same Wiley location logic | Reader transparency |
Methods, data, code, or literature-review AI | Methods disclosure with tool, date/version, role, and author verification | Same Wiley location logic | Reproducibility and evaluation |
AI visuals | Figure caption or Methods disclosure, with stronger limits for photographs and factual/evidential images | Same Wiley location logic | Image integrity and licensing |
Reviewer AI use | Governed by Wiley peer-review confidentiality guidance | Publisher-wide guidance | Confidentiality |
Source: Wiley AI guidelines for researchers checked July 7, 2026, plus Advanced Materials author guidance.
How does Wiley compare with other publisher AI policies?
Publisher | AI authorship | Manuscript text disclosure | Visual or image rule | Practical implication for Advanced Materials authors |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Wiley | Human authors remain accountable; disclose AI Technologies on submission | Acknowledgments for drafting/editing, Methods for research processes | Figure captions for AI-created or edited visuals; factual/evidential images and AI-edited photographs have strict limits | Use Wiley's location-specific disclosure, not a generic note |
Nature Portfolio | AI tools cannot be credited as authors; use must be documented where relevant | Methods or Acknowledgments depending on contribution | Image and figure rules are strict for research evidence | Do not assume a Nature-style disclosure automatically satisfies Wiley wording |
Elsevier | AI-assisted writing requires disclosure; AI cannot be an author | Disclosure statement or journal-required location | Image-generation and manipulation restrictions vary by use case | Keep a tool/version/use-case ledger before submission |
ACS | AI cannot be an author; substantive use must be disclosed | Publisher/journal policy determines location | Original research figures and images need human-source integrity | Materials authors moving between ACS and Wiley should rewrite, not copy, disclosure language |
What does AI disclosure look like in a Advanced Materials Methods section?
Acceptable disclosure language for Advanced Materials submissions:
"For this Advanced Materials manuscript, 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, benchmark selection, 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 Advanced Materials submission, 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 an Advanced Materials desk-screen:
- "AI tools were used in manuscript preparation." Too vague for Wiley editorial review of Advanced Materials submissions; the Advanced Materials editorial team needs the specific tool name, version or access date, and specific use case
- "We acknowledge AI assistance in the Acknowledgments." (Do not rely on this location unless the current journal policy explicitly allows it.)
- "ChatGPT helped write this paper." (Insufficient detail on use case)
- No disclosure when AI was used (publication-ethics violation)
Desk-screen risk, consequence, and failure patterns we see before submission
For Advanced Materials-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. In our pre-submission review work for Advanced Materials, this usually shows up as unusually generic novelty framing, polished but unsupported mechanism language, or abstract claims that sound broader than the data package. Check whether your manuscript reads as AI-assisted
AI disclosure placed in the wrong manuscript location. Publisher policies differ on whether AI disclosure belongs in Methods, Acknowledgments, figure captions, or another manuscript section. For Wiley, the location depends on use case. A disclosure about AI-assisted data analysis buried in Acknowledgments is not the same as a Methods disclosure that lets a reviewer evaluate the workflow. Check whether your AI disclosure is in the right section
Generic disclosure language without tool name and version. Wiley asks authors to maintain documentation of the AI Technology used, its purpose, and how authors reviewed the output. "AI tools were used" without the tool, version or date, role, and author-verification step is too thin for an Advanced Materials manuscript. Check whether your AI disclosure has the required specificity
AI-assisted figures without a figure-caption trail. Advanced Materials papers often depend on visual evidence. The common failure is not a decorative schematic; it is a figure where AI touched the workflow diagram, composite image, microscopy processing, or data-visualization step and the caption does not say what changed. Wiley's current guidance distinguishes conceptual illustrations, data visualizations, AI-edited photographs, and factual or evidential images. Treat that distinction as a pre-submission checklist, not as boilerplate.
Policy ambiguity handled too late. The avoidable Advanced Materials failure is waiting until proofs, peer review, or an editorial query to decide whether the AI role was material. If undisclosed AI use affected a benchmark claim, figure panel, code workflow, or literature-comparison table, the realistic outcomes are not just a wording request. The journal can ask for clarification before review, return the manuscript for correction, investigate a disclosure gap after acceptance, or require a correction if the published record is affected.
What should Advanced Materials authors check before submission?
Check | What to verify | Where it belongs |
|---|---|---|
Drafting or editing support | Tool name, version or access date, section touched, and human review | Acknowledgments if it is only drafting/editing/translation/formatting |
AI in methods, code, data, or literature review | Tool name, version/date, exact workflow role, validation, and reproducibility support | Methods, and sometimes supplemental documentation |
AI-assisted figures or visuals | Whether AI generated, edited, analyzed, or only explored a visual concept | Figure caption or Methods, depending on evidential role |
Privacy and rights | Whether the tool terms allow manuscript use and avoid unwanted training or ownership claims | Internal author ledger before upload |
Advanced Materials fit | Whether AI-assisted wording overstated the benchmark comparison, mechanism, or device-level advance | Abstract, figures, cover letter, and discussion |
What this means for authors: write the disclosure after mapping AI use to manuscript surfaces, not after choosing a generic policy sentence. The Advanced Materials risk is highest where AI touches evidence that reviewers use to judge novelty: benchmark tables, mechanism figures, Methods code, literature screening, image workflows, and cover-letter claims.
Submit If
- For Advanced Materials submissions: 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 Advanced Materials: no AI tool is listed as an author; all listed authors meet authorship criteria and take responsibility for the final manuscript
- For Advanced Materials: 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 Advanced Materials 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 Advanced Materials.
In our pre-submission review work for Advanced Materials and peer materials journals, the AI-policy compliance gap most consistent across the cohort is generic disclosure language without tool-version specificity. The materials-specific version of the problem is sharper than in many biomedical journals: AI often touches benchmark tables, graphical abstracts, workflow diagrams, microscopy panels, or property-prediction code. Those are not cosmetic surfaces. They affect how editors and reviewers judge mechanism, reproducibility, and novelty.
Of the 150+ Advanced Materials-targeted manuscripts our team reviewed in the 2025 Manusights internal preview corpus, the specific risk pattern we see most often is a mismatch between the disclosure sentence and the manuscript surface AI actually touched. Manusights review data makes that useful because the question is not whether a tool appeared somewhere in the workflow; it is whether the disclosure lets an editor evaluate the affected evidence surface.
We observe the same mismatch most clearly in graphical abstracts, benchmark tables, and code-supported Methods sections, where a short AI-writing acknowledgement does not tell the editor whether the tool affected evidence generation, evidence presentation, or only prose cleanup.
In practice this means the disclosure should be checked against the manuscript's evidence map before submission, not written as a final administrative note.
Through our diagnostic, we separate low-risk language cleanup from AI involvement in claims, figures, Methods workflows, code, and literature comparison so the disclosure can be placed in the right Wiley-required location.
The strongest Advanced Materials disclosures name the tool, version or access date, use case, exact manuscript surface, author validation step, and whether the output affected any claim, figure, or quantitative comparison. The weakest disclosures say only "AI was used for writing assistance" while the paper contains AI-shaped benchmark language, AI-reformatted graphs, or AI-assisted scripts.
We check Advanced Materials AI disclosures against the parts of the paper that create the strongest reviewer reliance. If a dielectric-polymer energy-storage paper like recent Advanced Materials work under DOI 10.1002/adma.73875 used AI to draft the benchmark table, the disclosure should say whether AI helped structure the comparison or only polished wording. If a magnetic soft-robot delivery paper like DOI 10.1002/adma.73957 used AI to generate a workflow diagram, the caption should separate conceptual illustration help from experimental images, device photographs, or quantitative plots.
If a photoreforming or semiconductor-doping paper like DOI 10.1002/adma.202520825 used AI to screen literature, draft code, or reshape a mechanism schematic, the disclosure should distinguish discovery support from evidence creation. We do not treat those DOI examples as AI-use examples; they are examples of the kind of Advanced Materials evidence surfaces where an undisclosed AI role would materially affect editorial trust.
The practical Manusights screen is therefore not "did you use ChatGPT?" It is: did AI touch a figure, method, data transformation, code file, literature-search step, benchmark claim, or mechanism paragraph that a reviewer needs to evaluate? If yes, the disclosure needs to be specific enough that an Advanced Materials editor can see the tool, date or version, role, author verification, and manuscript surface without asking a follow-up question.
Advanced Materials 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 Advanced Materials authors do to stay ahead of AI policy changes?
Wiley's AI policy framework continues to evolve as 2026 brings new ICMJE recommendations, COPE guidance refinements, and journal-specific clarifications. Advanced Materials authors should track three signals throughout 2026:
Quarterly policy updates from Wiley. The publisher's public AI policy guidance is updated over time. Advanced Materials 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 materials manuscripts. Different research domains see different AI use patterns. For Advanced Materials, the gray area often sits in graphical abstracts, microscopy-image workflows, property-prediction scripts, and benchmark-table wording. Authors who err on the side of more disclosure rather than less avoid the publication-ethics gray zone.
Reviewer disclosure norms. As Wiley extends AI-disclosure rules to peer reviewers, the response rate from Advanced Materials reviewers may shift. Authors should expect that Advanced Materials reviewers' use of AI tools is now also disclosed and factored into editorial decisions.
- Manusights internal preview corpus (150+ Advanced Materials-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 policy-required disclosure. Advanced Materials follows Wiley's current AI policy and broader publication-ethics guidance. AI tools can be used for language editing, manuscript preparation, and analysis support, but substantive generative-AI use must be disclosed in the location the publisher requires; basic copy editing may be treated differently. AI cannot be listed as an author, and human authors bear full responsibility for the content.
Use Wiley's current location logic. Put AI drafting, editing, translation, or formatting assistance in Acknowledgments; AI used in methods, data collection, data analysis, code, or literature review in Methods; and AI-created or AI-edited visuals in figure captions when those visuals appear in the manuscript.
Wiley requires disclosure when AI is used for visual creation or editing. AI-assisted data visualization and conceptual illustration may be possible with disclosure and human verification, but AI-edited photographs and AI-generated or AI-modified factual/evidential research images are not acceptable.
Advanced Materials 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.
The shared Wiley policy covers AI authorship responsibility, disclosure, visual content, and reviewer confidentiality. The Advanced Materials-specific risk is that AI often touches benchmark tables, mechanism claims, microscopy handling, or device-metric plots that reviewers use to judge materials novelty.
Sources
- Wiley AI guidelines for researchers (accessed 2026-07-07)
- Advanced Materials author guidelines (accessed 2026-07-07)
- ICMJE recommendations on AI use (accessed 2026-07-07)
- COPE guidance on AI in research publication (accessed 2026-07-07)
- Recent Advanced Materials DOI examples via Crossref (accessed 2026-07-07)
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.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Your manuscript is never used to train any model.
Where to go next
Start here
Same journal, next question
- Advanced Materials Submission Guide
- How to Avoid Desk Rejection at Advanced Materials in 2026
- Is Advanced Materials a Good Journal? Impact, Scope, and Fit
- Advanced Materials Interfaces Impact Factor 2026: 4.5 (2025 JIF)
- Advanced Materials Response to Reviewers: How to Write a Rebuttal That Clears the Breakthrough Bar (2026)
- Advanced Materials 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and When to Expect a Decision