Policy in Brief
We expect all submitted drafts to be by human author(s). We encourage authors to contact us if they have concerns or need support.
We do not accept content produced or edited by generative AI. This includes (but is not limited to) data analysis, generated text, images, or translations. We also do not allow generative AI during the peer review process.
Disclosure question you will be asked during the submission process:
- Did you use a generative AI tool to draft or edit this manuscript, analyze data, or create images? (If you only used it during the brainstorming or outlining stages, select no. If your use continued beyond the pre-writing stage, we encourage you to submit your manuscript elsewhere; we will not review it.)
Full Policy
While we acknowledge the various perspectives people have towards generative AI, including concerns about accessibility, environmental damage and labor abuses, our policy response is largely related to the bullshit factor.
We see a fundamental difference between assistive tools built into commonly utilized desktop or cloud-based softwares that refine the linguistic or intellectual work a writer has already done (e.g., grammar suggestions in MS Word or formula suggestions in Google Sheets) and generative tools that produce a new text or image and/or develop an argument, draw conclusions, synthesize concepts, or analyze information for the author (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude). We find a meaningful distinction between when an author knows the answer or has worked through the ideas already and when an author uses external tools to do the thinking for them.
We’re not the venue for manuscripts generated or edited by AI because they are by their nature bullshit. ITLWTLP works hard to develop trusting, respectful relationships with our writers and reviewers. The bullshit of genAI gets in the way of us being able to trust that authors know what they’re talking about and that they’re experts in their areas who have engaged conscientiously with the ideas of people who’ve gone before them. It also means that any developmental critiques we provide with the hope of helping authors strengthen their writing is a waste of time; telling someone to tell ChatGPT that we want more of their own voice is not why we’re here.
Our experience reading content generated by these tools is that they are often filled with errors. Also, unless done very carefully, our experience has been that general-purpose GenAI tools are not suitable for copy-editing, and tend to introduce as many higher-order issues (with facts and framing) as they remove at the sentence level (such as subject-verb agreement or repetitive word use). For these reasons, we do not currently accept articles that have been processed by GenAI tools. We heavily encourage authors to consult with whatever writing centers, copy editors, or academic style guides they have available, as these will typically preserve their authorial intent while also helping them refine their own writing and revising skills.
A related concern is that GenAI manuscripts are frequently written in a way that manages to have a lot of rhetorical flourishes while being flat and boring to read; they take unique voices and make them generic. Additionally, we require all authors to answer a question about how their positionality or identity informs their relationship to the topic they are writing about and to consider whether the design or framing of their research reinforces negative stereotypes about any minoritized populations. Generative AI tools cannot answer those questions, and generated content may be created from data that is itself biased and contains stereotypes. Because of these factors, among others, we are not interested in publishing this type of content.
We are open to articles written about AI tools in libraries, especially those that take a critical approach to the topic in a way consistent with our scope.
We welcome authors who’ve used AI tools during their pre-writing work (e.g., brainstorming and outlining; transcribing interviews that researchers have checked for accuracy), but we do not accept proposals or manuscripts which authors have used GenAI to produce or edit.
Generative AI is a rapidly changing field. As a result, we will regularly review this policy (along with our other editorial policies and procedures), to ensure that we continue to publish high quality research articles that match the vision and values of the editorial board of In the Library with the Lead Pipe. (originally published November 2024, updated December 2025)