The AI-Generated Content Code of Practice is the European Commission’s voluntary framework, published 10 June 2026, that helps providers and deployers of generative AI systems meet the labelling and disclosure duties in Article 50 of the EU AI Act. For journals and preprint servers, the Code’s “editorial responsibility” carve-out is the single most consequential clause: it determines whether peer-reviewed articles, preprints, and AI-assisted manuscript text trigger a public AI-disclosure requirement.
The Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content is a non-binding compliance instrument: it is a voluntary set of practical measures that signatories can use as evidence of compliance with the legally binding transparency obligations set out in Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, the EU AI Act.
- What is the AI-Generated Content Code of Practice?
- Article 50 vs Article 56: two different codes, not one
- What this means for journal editorial workflows
- Preprint servers: a narrower exemption path
- Answer-first Q&A
- Implications and a compliance checklist
What is the AI-Generated Content Code of Practice?
The Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content was closed out at a plenary session on 10 June 2026, following a drafting process that ran from November 2025 through three drafting rounds, the last concluding on 8 May 2026. It was produced by the European Commission’s AI Office through two working groups: one covering obligations for providers of generative AI systems, the other covering obligations for deployers — the organisations that actually publish AI-generated or AI-assisted output.
Providers must ensure that generated audio, image, video, and text outputs are marked in a machine-readable format detectable as artificial, using layered technical measures such as metadata and watermarking. Deployers must clearly label deepfakes and must disclose AI-generated text on matters of public interest unless that text has undergone human review and is subject to editorial responsibility. That single exemption clause is what makes the Code directly relevant to scholarly publishing.
Article 50 vs Article 56: two different codes, not one
Publishers should not confuse this Code with the earlier General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, finalised on 10 July 2025 under Article 56 of the AI Act. That code addresses safety, security, and copyright compliance for developers of foundation models such as GPT- and Gemini-class systems — it is not about labelling published content.
The June 2026 Code sits under Article 50 instead, and governs transparency obligations that apply from 2 August 2026, when the wider AI Act’s transparency provisions take effect. Confusing the two codes is the most common error in early legal commentary on this development, and it matters for publishers: it is Article 50 — not Article 56 — that determines whether an AI-assisted peer-review report, cover letter, or manuscript summary requires a visible “AI” label.
What this means for journal editorial workflows
Peer-reviewed journal articles are the clearest case for the editorial-responsibility exemption. A manuscript that has passed through peer review, editorial decision-making, and copyediting has, by definition, undergone the “human review… subject to editorial responsibility” that Article 50(4) requires to avoid the public-disclosure trigger for AI-generated text.
This does not remove the underlying disclosure obligation that scholarly publishing already imposes through its own ethics infrastructure. ICMJE’s Recommendations state that AI tools cannot be credited as authors because they cannot take responsibility for the submitted work, and that any generative AI use in manuscript preparation must be disclosed to editors and readers. COPE’s position statement on AI tools reaches the same conclusion: AI cannot be an author, and authors remain fully accountable for content it helped produce. The EU Code’s editorial-responsibility test and the ICMJE/COPE disclosure rule are therefore complementary, not duplicative — a journal that already enforces ICMJE-COPE disclosure norms is well placed to document compliance with the EU Code if it chooses to sign.
- Editorial policy: confirm the AI-use disclosure clause in author guidelines references generative AI text, not only images or data.
- Peer review reports: reviewers using AI drafting tools should disclose this to editors, mirroring the deployer disclosure logic in the Code.
- Editorial metadata: retain records evidencing human review, since this is the documentation that supports the Article 50(4) exemption claim.
Preprint servers: a narrower exemption path
Preprints are structurally different. A preprint is, by design, posted before formal peer review and before an editorial board takes responsibility for its content. That means the “editorial responsibility” exemption that shelters a published journal article is much harder for a preprint server to claim at the point of posting.
Preprint servers such as arXiv, bioRxiv, and medRxiv already run moderation screening, but screening for scope and plagiarism is not the same as the substantive editorial review Article 50(4) contemplates. Where a preprint contains AI-generated text on a matter of public interest — a policy-relevant synthesis, a public-health claim — a strict reading of the Code suggests deployer-side disclosure obligations may apply at the preprint stage, even though the same text would likely be exempt once it clears peer review and is published in a journal. Preprint operators serving EU users should treat this as a genuine compliance gap to close, not an afterthought.
| Content type | Human review / editorial responsibility present? | Likely Article 50 disclosure trigger |
|---|---|---|
| Peer-reviewed journal article | Yes — editorial board, peer review, copyediting | Exempt (if AI use is disclosed per ICMJE/COPE norms) |
| Preprint (pre-review) | Limited — screening only, no substantive editorial review | Disclosure obligation more likely to apply |
| AI-generated figure or image (deepfake-style) | Not applicable — separate deployer rule | Labelling required regardless of review stage |
| AI-assisted literature-review drafting | Depends on subsequent editorial handling | Case-by-case; disclose per journal policy |
Answer-first Q&A
Is the AI-Generated Content Code of Practice mandatory?
No. The Code of Practice is voluntary; signing it is optional. What is legally binding is Article 50 of the EU AI Act itself, which applies from 2 August 2026. Signing the Code simply gives providers and deployers, including publishers, a recognised route to demonstrate compliance with those binding obligations.
Does the Code of Practice apply to preprints?
The Code applies to any deployer publishing AI-generated text on matters of public interest to EU audiences, which can include preprint servers. Because preprints have not undergone substantive editorial review at posting, the editorial-responsibility exemption is harder to claim than for peer-reviewed journal articles, making preprint-stage disclosure more likely to be required.
Can AI-generated text be listed as an author contribution?
No. ICMJE and COPE both hold that generative AI tools cannot qualify as authors because they cannot be held accountable for the work or approve the final version. Human authors must disclose AI use and retain full responsibility for accuracy, originality, and integrity of the resulting manuscript text.
How does this Code differ from the GPAI Code of Practice?
The GPAI Code of Practice (Article 56, July 2025) governs foundation-model developers’ safety, security, and copyright duties. The AI-Generated Content Code of Practice (Article 50, June 2026) instead governs labelling and disclosure of AI-generated outputs by the organisations that publish them — the code directly relevant to journals and preprint servers.
Implications and a compliance checklist
For the publisher segment of CASRAI’s audience, the practical task is narrow but time-sensitive: journals should audit whether their existing ICMJE/COPE-aligned AI-disclosure clauses reference the Code’s editorial-responsibility test, and preprint operators serving EU readers should assess whether pre-review screening is sufficient to avoid a deployer-side disclosure obligation once Article 50 takes effect on 2 August 2026.
- Map current author-guideline AI-disclosure language against Article 50(4)’s “human review and editorial responsibility” wording.
- Confirm peer review and editorial sign-off records are retained as exemption evidence.
- Assess whether preprint-stage moderation constitutes “editorial responsibility” under a plain reading of the Code, or whether additional review is needed.
- Track AI Office guidance and signatory lists, since the Code’s practical measures may evolve as more publishers sign.
Institutions coordinating research-integrity policy across editorial offices and research administration functions should treat this as a live compliance item for the second half of 2026, and align it with existing authorship disclosure norms rather than treating it as a separate, parallel rulebook.