Generative AI Policy Template for Conference Submissions and Peer Review

Artificial intelligence has integrated itself into every aspect of the world and its working. Event management is not an exception to this. However, with the idea of revolutionary tech like AI also comes ethical considerations. Your conference’s AI policy is what draws the line, where you think it should be stenciled and to what extent. A conference AI policy template is at the top of the list for many organizations now functioning at the peak of generative AI.

Should your authors be allowed to use AI in their submissions at all?

And if yes, to what degree?

These are two questions that will help clarify the stance of your organization when it comes to the usage of generative AI in abstract submissions. Not adopting a conference AI policy template at all today is leaving room for interpretation, one that might boomerang right back on you.

Why You Need Your Own Conference AI Policy Template

It is important to understand that artificial intelligence today, despite its obvious drawbacks, has become an inextricable part of academic writing for many scholars around the world. Each to their merits and demerits. It is not the work of conference organizers to gauge what it means to use AI as an author today. No. Leave the creative and moral scrutiny to the policymakers and the general public. 

As conference organizers and event planners, what you ought to do is understand the changing world and adapt your work according to it. We have generative AI now and as it appears, it is here to stay. The bigger question is: How do you intend to deal with this technology? 

How Academia is Dealing With The Advent of AI

The academic and research community has already taken actionable steps to elucidate what artificial intelligence means for their insititution.

• Science by AAAS: The journal Science does not outwardly prohibit the usage of Ai in its submissions. However, it does require disclosure by authors at every stage of submission and review. As of 2026, artificial intelligence cannot be listed as a co-author. With regard to AI-generated images, Science allows for their inclusion as long as they are approved by the handling editor.
• Nature: Unlike Science, Nature has a total ban in place over the use of photorealistic images created by AI. Within the context of AI-assistance in research writing, Nature has softened its previously strong stance against AI. It has since acknowledged that AI can be a useful tool is augmenting research writing should it be utilized responsibly.
• ICMJE: This journals is actively asking its submitters for author disclosure and human responsibility.
• IEEE: Requires disclosure of generated article content but generally excludes the usage of AI in grammar editing.
• NIH: Has a complete ban on the use of generative AI in its peer review process.

Verify each live source before relying on it, and read our note on the broader risks of using AI across event operations for better context. Your team must be able to make your own. AI conference policy template clear before you open up submissions for the season.

Choose Your Conference AI Policy Template Position First

Settle these choices with your publisher, sponsor, program chairs and privacy or legal advisers before you start to edit any clause at all

• The conservative model permits only narrow language correction by authors and bans generative AI in every review task.
• The disclosure-led model permits substantive author use when disclosed and requires detailed reporting when AI affects the method or findings.
• The controlled-use model permits defined uses only in named, approved environments with logged controls.

We recommend the disclosure-led model as the editable starting point for most multidisciplinary research conferences.

Copy-And-Customize Conference AI Policy Template

Replace every bracketed field and delete each option you do not select. Then publish one controlled version everywhere the rule appears.

1. Scope and definitions

This policy applies to authors, reviewers, chairs, committee members and administrators who handle a submission or review for [conference]. It covers text, data, code, images, supplementary files, reviews, scores, rebuttals and deliberations. Where a publisher, sponsor, contract or law imposes a stricter rule, the stricter rule applies.

Generative AI means a system that produces or materially transforms content, including features embedded in familiar software. Substantive use means use that creates, changes, or analyzes intellectual content beyond routine spelling, grammar, or formatting.

Confidential material here means unpublished submissions, identities, reviews, scores, rebuttals, deliberations, and personal data.

2. Rules for authors

• A human remains responsible for the submission, and no AI system may be listed as an author.
• Routine spelling, grammar and formatting of author-written text is allowed without disclosure if you adopt that exemption.
• Translation, drafting and rewriting are allowed only with disclosure of the tool, purpose and affected sections.
• Any use that shapes code, data, figures or findings requires detailed methods disclosure.
• Authors must read every source they cite, because a generated reference may not be cited until the original is located.
• Fabricated data, citations or results are prohibited however they were produced.

The corresponding author must keep the disclosure accurate through revision, rebuttal and final materials.

3. Rules for reviewers and chairs

• Reviewers and chairs must not upload, paste or describe confidential material to a public or unapproved generative AI system.
• Reviewers must personally read the work, and they must not use generative AI to write a review, assign a score or recommend a decision.
• Chairs may not use AI to merge reviews or write meta-reviews unless the policy allows a narrowly defined, governed use.
• A reviewer must not share a submission with a colleague or AI-enabled service unless [chair] authorized it in advance.
• Anyone who accidentally exposes confidential material must stop using the system and report it promptly to [contact].

4. Organizer-operated systems and tool approval

If [conference] uses an AI-enabled system for screening or decision support, it will give notice of the purpose, the data involved and the human review step. No system will make a final acceptance, rejection or misconduct decision without accountable human review.

Before any use involving non-public information, the privacy owner should record whether inputs are retained or used for training, where data is stored and how deletion is verified. You can see how organizer-operated AI support works in Dryfta as one example of a governed workflow.

5. Disclosure statements

Author disclosure: During the preparation of this submission, the authors used [tool and version] for [purpose]. The use affected [sections or files]. The authors verified the output and take full responsibility for the final content.

Reviewer declaration: I did not submit confidential conference material to a generative AI system or use one to replace my evaluation. I personally completed this review and take responsibility for it.

Collect structured fields such as tool name, purpose and affected parts instead of a bare yes or no question. A simple yes cannot tell you whether the use was a grammar check or synthetic imagery.

6. Suspected breaches, enforcement and appeals

• Concerns go to [contact] with the identifier, the rule believed relevant and any evidence.
• People with a conflict of interest must not investigate, decide or hear an appeal.
• The affected person receives a specific description of the concern and a fair chance to respond before any adverse finding.
• A detector score, writing style or intuition never establishes a breach on its own.
• Outcomes must be proportionate, ranging from no action or a corrected disclosure to re-review or rejection.
• The decision notice states the reasons and the appeal route, and appeals go to [independent role] within [number] days.
• Good-faith reporting will not lead to retaliation, although the conference cannot promise absolute anonymity.

How To Put The AI Conference Policy Template Into Your Workflow

• Confirm the rules of your proceedings publisher, society and host institution first.
• Approve one controlled version with an owner, effective date, review date and change log.
• Publish it before submissions open in the call for papers, submission portal and reviewer invitation.
• Keep a register of approved tools with the use case, owner and reassessment date.
• Assign intake, investigation, decision and appeal roles before any concern arises.
• Set retention and deletion schedules for disclosures, evidence and decisions.

A policy is not implemented because a PDF exists. It must appear where authors disclose and reviewers accept confidentiality, as shown in this guide on where policy fits in the submission-to-publication workflow.

Publish A Usable AI Conference Policy Template

Your participants need to know the rules of the game before they can even act on it. The best of policies are those that clearly name what is allowed and what is not and where there is room for subjective interpretation.

It is also noteworthy to mention that artificial intelligence is an evolving technology. In a year or two, there may be some crucial developments with regard to its usage. Overall industry trends may switch, leading to its greater adoption or rejection. Hence, it is important for your team to keep up-to-date with the latest news in AI and review your conference AI policy template accordingly.

Adapt the conference AI policy template we’ve gone over in this article and publish it before you kickstart submissions for the season. Once your rules are approved, you can manage submissions and peer review in one controlled workflow with Dryfta. Software alone does not create compliance or settle integrity judgments. Sign up for a free demo with us today.