PNAS AI Policy: National Academy Rules for America's Broadest Science Journal
PNAS requires disclosure of AI and generative AI use in the Materials and Methods section (or Acknowledgments if there is no Methods section), prohibits AI authorship, restricts AI-generated images, and applies its policies to all authors including those using the NAS contributed track.
Readiness scan
AI policy covered? See what PNAS reviewers are likely to push back on.
The AI policy governs disclosure, not how the science is judged. Run the Free Readiness Scan with PNAS as your target to see desk-rejection risk, likely reviewer concerns, and journal fit.
PNAS 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
- PNAS's scope and readership determine whether the journal is a useful target.
- Scope specificity matters more than headline metrics for most manuscript decisions.
- PNAS journal metrics reports an acceptance rate of 13% of direct submissions (2025) for PNAS. This journal-wide figure is not an individual manuscript probability.
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: PNAS takes ~10 days to first decision. A faster-turnaround journal may suit a grant or job deadline better.
- If OA is required: gold OA costs $6,075. Check institutional agreements before submitting.
Quick answer: PNAS occupies a distinctive spot in scientific publishing. It's the journal of the National Academy of Sciences, an institution of which, PNAS says, nearly 200 members have won Nobel Prizes. It publishes across the biological, physical, and social sciences. And it still has a "contributed" submission track where NAS members may contribute up to two research manuscripts a year.
PNAS AI Policy at a Glance
- AI authorship: Prohibited. AI tools cannot be listed as authors and cannot take accountability for the work.
- AI disclosure: Required. Disclose use of AI and generative AI software (for example, large language models such as ChatGPT) in the Materials and Methods section, or in the Acknowledgments if there is no Methods section, and name the tool and its specific model or version.
- AI-generated images: Restricted. AI tools for creating images or graphics may not be used unless the software is the subject of the work under consideration or the editorial office has granted permission.
- Copy editing: Check the current publisher guidance for whether your specific use case requires disclosure.
The PNAS AI policy
PNAS's AI policy is part of its Editorial and Journal Policies. The core rules:
- AI can't be an author. PNAS says AI and generative AI software, such as large language models (for example ChatGPT), may not be listed as an author, and that authorship must be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work.
- AI use must be disclosed in the Materials and Methods section. If the paper has no Materials and Methods section, disclose it in the Acknowledgments. PNAS asks for the name and the specific model or version of the tool (for example, GPT-4 or Claude 3.5 Sonnet).
- AI tools for images and graphics are restricted. They may not be used unless the software is the subject of the work under consideration or permission has been granted by the editorial office.
- Authors bear full responsibility. PNAS says authors are solely accountable for, and must thoroughly fact-check, outputs created with the help of generative AI software.
- The policy applies to all authors. By submitting to PNAS, all authors agree to adhere to the editorial and publication policies, including NAS members submitting through the Contributed track.
The AI disclosure requirement
PNAS asks for AI disclosure in the Materials and Methods section, or in the Acknowledgments if the paper has no Materials and Methods section:
Methods section (example):
"During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT (GPT-4, OpenAI) to improve the clarity and readability of the Introduction and Discussion sections. GitHub Copilot (Microsoft) was used to assist with writing Python scripts for the phylogenetic analysis. All AI-suggested text was reviewed by the authors, and all code was validated against published reference datasets. The authors take full responsibility for the published content."
PNAS's policy names the Materials and Methods section (or Acknowledgments), not the Author Contributions statement. Because AI software may not be listed as an author, do not list it as a contributor; describe its use in the Methods instead.
PNAS also says it uses software that may leverage AI in its editorial assessment and peer review: iThenticate to screen for text similarity to published works, Pangram to detect content generated by AI, Prophy to help match submissions to editors and potential reviewers, and Web of Science Reviewer Locator to identify potential reviewers.
How the NAS institutional context matters
PNAS is published by the National Academy of Sciences, a nonprofit society, and its Editorial Board is made up of NAS members who are active scientists. A few features of that structure matter for AI policy:
The contributed track. NAS members may contribute up to two research manuscripts a year. All authors, including NAS members using that track, must adhere to PNAS editorial policies and guidelines, and contributed manuscripts are peer-reviewed by at least two independent experts.
Reviewers. PNAS's reviewer guidelines say reviewers may not submit any submitted manuscript or related materials to any generative AI software, such as large language models or ChatGPT.
Cover art. PNAS says images created wholly or substantially using generative AI are not eligible for consideration as cover art; limited use of generative AI for individual elements within otherwise original artwork may be acceptable, with a description of the creative process.
Writing the disclosure for PNAS
For a biological sciences paper:
Methods:
"During manuscript preparation, the authors used ChatGPT (GPT-4, OpenAI) to improve the language of the Results and Discussion sections. All AI-suggested text was reviewed by the corresponding author (G.H.) and verified against the experimental data. No AI tools were used for data analysis or experimental design."
For a physical sciences paper:
Methods:
"The authors used Claude (Claude 3.5, Anthropic) to edit the Introduction for language clarity. Density functional theory calculations were performed using Quantum ESPRESSO 7.2 without AI assistance."
For a social sciences paper:
Methods:
"During preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT (GPT-4, OpenAI) to assist with improving the readability of the statistical methods description. The survey instrument, data collection, and statistical analysis were conducted without AI assistance."
What requires disclosure at PNAS
Use case | Disclosure required? | PNAS-specific notes |
|---|---|---|
Grammar/spell check | Not addressed | PNAS's policy covers AI and generative AI software used during the research process and does not single out grammar checkers, so ask the editorial office if unsure |
ChatGPT for language editing | Yes | Methods (or Acknowledgments); name the tool and model or version |
AI for data analysis code | Yes | Methods; confirm validation |
AI as research subject | Research method | Standard Methods; the image restriction does not apply when the software is the subject of the work |
AI-generated figures | Restricted | Not allowed unless the software is the subject of the work or the editorial office grants permission |
Translation of manuscript | Not addressed | Not named in PNAS's policy; disclosing the tool and languages in Methods or Acknowledgments is the safer course |
AI for supplementary text | Yes | Part of the submission |
AI for significance statement | Yes | PNAS requires a significance statement of up to 120 words |
AI for statistical analysis | Yes | Specify which analyses |
The significance statement point is PNAS-specific. Every PNAS paper includes a brief "Significance" statement that explains the paper's importance to a general scientific audience. If AI helped write this, which is tempting given the 120-word constraint, disclose it.
Consequences of non-disclosure
PNAS says failure to comply with its Editorial and Journal Policies may result in manuscript rejection, post-publication updates (including expressions of concern or retraction), and may preclude future publication in the journal. In cases of suspected or alleged misconduct, PNAS says it follows the recommended procedures from COPE.
During review:
- PNAS says it uses software, including Pangram, to detect content generated by AI as part of its editorial assessment and peer review
- Manuscripts that do not comply with the editorial and journal policies may be rejected
After publication:
- Post-publication updates, including expressions of concern or retraction
- A bar on future publication in the journal
The contributed track: The same editorial policies apply to contributed manuscripts.
Readiness check
Run the scan while the topic is in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Comparison with other broad-scope journals
Feature | PNAS | Science | Nature | Science Advances | Nature Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Publisher | NAS | AAAS | Springer Nature | AAAS | Springer Nature |
AI authorship | Prohibited | Prohibited | Prohibited | Prohibited | Prohibited |
Disclosure location | Materials and Methods (or Acknowledgments) | Acknowledgments/Methods | Methods | Acknowledgments/Methods | Methods |
AI image ban | Yes, with exceptions | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Former AI text ban | No | Yes (Jan-Nov 2023) | No | Yes (Jan-Nov 2023) | No |
Contributed/member track | Yes | No | No | No | No |
PNAS is the only journal in this comparison with a member-contributed track.
How the policy compares across PNAS submission tracks
Track | AI disclosure required? | Review process | Additional notes |
|---|---|---|---|
Direct submission | Yes (Methods, or Acknowledgments if no Methods section) | Single-anonymous peer review by at least two independent experts | Most submissions |
Contributed track | Yes (same policy) | Peer review by at least two independent experts; reviewer names are published | NAS members, up to two research manuscripts a year |
The contributed track deserves emphasis. If you're an NAS member contributing a paper, your AI disclosure obligations are the same as for direct submissions, and PNAS says all authors, including NAS members using the Contributed track, must adhere to its editorial policies.
Practical advice for PNAS submissions
For all submissions:
- Prepare a disclosure statement for the Materials and Methods section (or the Acknowledgments if there is no Methods section)
- Name the tool and its specific model or version
- Don't forget the Significance statement. If AI helped write it, say so.
For biological sciences papers:
- If AI helped with genomics, proteomics, or metabolomics code, disclose in both locations
- Deposit code in a public repository, PNAS expects code availability
For physical sciences and engineering:
- Simulation code written with AI assistance needs disclosure
- Theoretical derivations should be human-generated; AI can edit the text but shouldn't produce the math
For social sciences:
- If AI helped with statistical code (R, Stata, Python), disclose and confirm validation
- Survey instruments and qualitative analysis should be human-designed
For contributed track papers:
- Ensure the contributing NAS member is aware of all AI use in the manuscript
- PNAS says the same editorial policies apply to Contributed submissions
Before submission checklist:
- [ ] AI disclosure in the Materials and Methods section (or Acknowledgments if there is no Methods section)
- [ ] AI is not listed as an author or contributor
- [ ] Tool name, version, and use case specified
- [ ] No AI-generated images unless the software is the subject of the work or the editorial office has granted permission
- [ ] Significance statement AI use disclosed if applicable
- [ ] Code deposited in public repository
- [ ] All co-authors aware of AI disclosure
A PNAS submission readiness check can help verify your PNAS submission meets the journal's AI-disclosure and formatting requirements.
What should you do about PNAS's AI policy?
Comply proactively if:
- You used any AI tool (ChatGPT, Grammarly, Copilot) during manuscript preparation
- PNAS requires AI use disclosure in the Materials and Methods section or the acknowledgments
- Your institution has its own AI use policy that may be stricter
Less concerned if:
- You used AI only for grammar/spell checking (PNAS's policy does not single this out, so ask the editorial office if unsure)
- Your use was limited to literature search or reference management
Frequently asked questions
Yes, with disclosure. PNAS says use of AI and generative AI software, such as large language models, during the research process must be disclosed in the Materials and Methods section (or Acknowledgments if there is no Methods section), and that such software may not be listed as an author. Authors are solely accountable for, and must thoroughly fact-check, any output created with the help of generative AI.
In the Materials and Methods section of the manuscript, or in the Acknowledgments if there is no Materials and Methods section. PNAS asks for the name and the specific model or version of any AI tool (for example, GPT-4 or Claude 3.5 Sonnet).
The AI policy is part of the PNAS Editorial and Journal Policies on the PNAS Author Center. PNAS is published by the National Academy of Sciences, and it says that by submitting to PNAS all authors agree to adhere to the journal's editorial and publication policies.
No. PNAS says all authors, including NAS members submitting through the Contributed track, must adhere to its editorial policies and guidelines, so the AI disclosure requirements are the same for Direct and Contributed Submissions.
PNAS says failure to comply with its Editorial and Journal Policies may result in manuscript rejection and post-publication updates (including expressions of concern or retraction), and may preclude future publication in the journal. PNAS also says it uses software, including Pangram, to detect content generated by AI as part of its editorial assessment and peer review.
Sources
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
- PNAS Submission Guide: What to Prepare Before You Submit
- Is PNAS a Good Journal? What the Data and Editorial Model Tell You
- How to Avoid Desk Rejection at PNAS
- PNAS Impact Factor 2026: 9.5, Q1, Rank 14/140
- PNAS Review Time: What to Expect From Submission to Decision
- PNAS 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and When to Expect a Decision