A scholarly publisher separates AI citation from AI authorship

The writer's problem

A psychology researcher who used a chatbot to help translate a passage or generate a first pass at a resource list needs to know not just whether that is allowed, but exactly how to cite it. The American Psychological Association's journals division addresses this in its policy on generative AI, a page the site describes as created in November 2023 and last updated in August 2025.

What the documents show

APA's stated policy requires that any use of generative AI in drafting a manuscript be disclosed in the methods section and cited, and separately states that AI cannot be named as an author. Authors remain responsible for verifying any information or citation an AI tool supplies. The page sets out disclosure principles rather than a single rule: authors should be transparent about how AI was used, avoid entering confidential material such as identifiable participant data into public tools, take responsibility for the output, and provide attribution comparable to what a human contributor performing the same task would receive, whether that is drafting a resource list, translating text, or generating code. A companion publishing-policies page places this alongside APA's other scholarly-publishing rules and points to APA Style's separate guidance on formatting an AI citation itself.

The editorial choice

By separating the citation question from the authorship question, APA's policy lets an author disclose and credit an AI tool's contribution without implying the tool shares authorship, a distinction the page draws explicitly using its own Contributor Role Taxonomy comparison. Because the policy has already been revised once since its 2023 creation, per the page's own dates, a writer relying on it should treat the description as current only as retrieved on 16 September 2026, not as fixed guidance.

What stays with the author

Verifying every AI-supplied citation by reading the original source, rather than trusting the AI's summary of it, remains the author's task under this policy, as does deciding what counts as a confidentiality risk before entering material into a public tool. The policy does not specify a penalty scale for a missed disclosure, leaving enforcement to each journal editor's judgment.

• Does the disclosure sit in the section APA names, or only in a general acknowledgment?
• Was the AI tool used for drafting, editing, or analysis, and does the citation reflect which one?
• Has this page been checked again since 16 September 2026, given how recently it was last revised?

APA's answer keeps AI credit visible on the page while keeping the name on the byline entirely human.