Authors who have used AI anywhere in their process, from brainstorming to drafting support, understandably want to know whether that will count against them when they submit to a publisher or agent. The honest answer is that the industry has not settled on one position, and it may not for some time.
This guide sets out why policies vary, what tends to be checked, and what to do before you submit AI-assisted work, without pretending there is a single rule you can rely on.
Is there a single publishing-industry rule on AI?
No. Publishers, literary agencies and competitions each set their own policies, and those policies differ in scope, wording and strictness. Some are explicit about AI in submission guidelines; many say nothing at all, which is not the same as blanket permission or blanket prohibition.
Does it matter whether AI was "assisted" or "generated"?
Many policies, where they exist, distinguish between AI-assisted work, where a human writes the text and uses AI for tasks such as planning, research questions or feedback, and AI-generated work, where substantial passages of the actual prose were produced by a model. The more of the finished text that originated from AI generation rather than the author’s own drafting, the more likely a policy is to apply, and the more scrutiny a submission may attract.
What do traditional publishers tend to look at?
Individual imprints and publishing houses set their own approach, and it can change as the wider industry position develops. Some ask about AI use directly during acquisition; others rely on general warranties in the publishing contract about originality and authorship. There is no shortcut to checking the specific publisher’s current submission guidance.
Do literary agents have their own policies?
Individual agents and agencies vary just as much as publishers, if not more, because many operate independently. Some state a position on AI-assisted submissions in their guidelines; most simply expect any submission to represent the author’s own work and judgement. Reading an agent’s current submission page before querying is the only reliable way to know their position.
What about writing competitions?
Competition rules are usually the most explicit place to look, because organisers often publish specific eligibility criteria. Some competitions now state a position on AI use directly in their rules; others do not mention it. Always check the current rules for the specific competition before entering, since these can change between rounds.
Where should I actually check for a policy?
The submission guidelines page for the specific publisher, imprint, agent or competition is the only source that reflects their current position. General industry commentary, forum posts and older articles (including guides like this one) can go out of date quickly, so treat them as background rather than a substitute for checking directly.
What are contract warranties, and why do they matter here?
What does this mean?
Warranty (in a publishing contract)
A clause in which the author confirms certain things about the work, commonly including that it is original, that the author owns the rights, and that it does not infringe anyone else’s copyright. Read any warranty clause carefully in light of how the manuscript was produced, and raise questions with the publisher or a suitably qualified professional if you are unsure whether your process is covered.
How does copyright fit into this?
Copyright ownership of AI-generated material is a genuinely unsettled area in several jurisdictions, and it can affect what a publisher is willing to acquire, since they typically need to be confident about the rights they are licensing or buying. This is a separate question from whether AI use itself is disclosed or accepted; see is it legal to publish an AI-written book? for what is currently known about the copyright position.
Should I disclose that I used AI?
Where a publisher, agent or competition asks directly, answer honestly. Even where nobody asks, disclosing AI use where it was substantial is generally the safer and more straightforward approach, because a warranty about originality and authorship can be undermined later if AI involvement only comes to light after a contract is signed. This guide does not suggest concealing AI use from anyone you are submitting to.
Why do policies vary so much?
Publishing houses, agencies and competitions are independent organisations without a single shared regulator setting rules on AI use in submissions. They are each responding to legal uncertainty, reader expectations, author advocacy and commercial pressure at different speeds, which produces a genuinely varied and fast-changing picture rather than one settled industry norm.
What should authors do before submitting AI-assisted work?
Before submitting AI-assisted work
- Read the specific publisher’s current submission guidelines
- Read the specific agent’s current submission guidelines
- Read the current rules for any competition you are entering
- Check any contract warranties about originality and authorship before signing
- Understand what disclosure, if any, is required
- Understand the current copyright position for the parts of the work AI was involved in
- Keep records of how and where you used AI during the project
Why should I keep records of my process?
A simple note of what you used AI for at each stage, drafting prompts, planning sessions, feedback requests, makes it far easier to answer a disclosure question accurately months or years later, and it also helps you demonstrate the extent of your own authorship if that is ever relevant.
What if I am not sure whether my use of AI needs disclosing?
Ask. A short, direct email to the publisher, agent or competition organiser asking how they treat AI-assisted work is a normal, reasonable question, and it is far more reliable than assuming a policy based on something you read elsewhere.
Common mistakes
- Assuming one publisher’s policy applies industry-wide. Each publisher, agent and competition sets its own approach; check the specific one you are submitting to.
- Concealing substantial AI use when asked directly. This can undermine warranties in a publishing contract if it comes to light later.
- Treating an old article or forum post as current policy. This is a fast-moving area; always check the live submission guidelines.
- Signing a contract without reading the originality warranty. Understand what you are confirming about how the work was produced before you sign.
- Not keeping any record of AI use during the project. This makes an honest, specific disclosure much harder to give later.
Frequently asked questions
Do all publishers reject AI-assisted manuscripts?
No. There is no evidence of a single industry-wide position; policies vary by publisher, agent and competition, and some do not address AI use at all.
Is using AI for planning or editing support the same as AI-generated content?
Most policies that exist distinguish between the two. Planning, feedback and organisational support is generally treated differently from substantial AI-generated prose, though wording varies.
Will I be asked whether I used AI when I submit to an agent?
Some agents ask; many do not. Check the specific agent’s current submission guidelines rather than assuming either way.
Should I mention AI use in a query letter if nobody has asked?
This is a judgement call. If your use was substantial, mentioning it upfront is generally the more transparent approach; for light planning support, it may not be necessary. When in doubt, ask the agent or publisher directly.