October 2025
Note: This policy is specific to the College Composition and Communication journal and its authors, reviewers, and editors. This policy does not extend to any other CCCC or NCTE publication and does not supersede NCTE’s journal policies. Further, given the rapid-moving nature of AI, frequent changes and updates to this policy by NCTE can be expected.
In recognition of the growing influence of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) writing technologies, College Composition and Communication (CCC) affirms its commitment to ethical, responsible, and human-centered approaches to writing knowledge production. As the flagship journal in composition studies, CCC upholds the core values of transparency, intellectual integrity, mutual respect, originality, authenticity, inclusivity, and fairness. This policy outlines how authors, reviewers, and editors can engage with GenAI responsibly in ways that reflect and support those values.
Guiding Principles
CCC understands writing as a rhetorical, collaborative, and contextually situated practice. GenAI tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, and similar text-generating platforms can shape how knowledge is produced, circulated, and received. As a result, CCC encourages deliberate, reflective use of these technologies that advances the goals of ethical authorship, disciplinary engagement, and critical discourse. CCC also recognizes divergent perspectives on GenAI and seeks to foster shared standards while remaining attentive to evolving technologies and disciplinary debates.
For Authors
Authorship and Accountability
Authors are responsible for the originality and intellectual integrity of their submissions. GenAI tools may be used to support, but not act as a substitute for, scholarly labor. CCC defines authorship as the product of human inquiry, interpretation, and rhetorical decision-making.
GenAI Disclosure Requirements
CCC’s generative AI policy requires potential authors to disclose GenAI use in the rhetorical decision-making, research, and writing processes that accompany preparing texts for possible publication. This disclosure should be no more than two hundred words and should
- name the tools used (e.g., ChatGPT 4.0, Claude);
- describe what tasks GenAI supported (e.g., generating ideas, getting advice, outlining, creating written content, drafting, editing, proofreading, formatting);
- clarify the percentage of the submission that is solely the result of human authorship; and
- confirm that you are responsible for the originality and intellectual integrity of your submission, own the rights to any content produced by GenAI, and vouch for the ethicality and integrity of any statements or citations created by GenAI.
Editorial Use of Disclosures
GenAI disclosures will not affect publication decisions. Instead, they provide context for reviewers and editors. Editors may choose to include AI disclosures in accepted articles to promote transparency in scholarly communication.
If you did not use GenAI in the preparation of your submission, you do not need to create a disclosure statement. Otherwise, please include your AI disclosure statement in the same document as your CCC submission.
For Reviewers
Equitable Evaluation
A submission’s use of GenAI (if transparently disclosed) should not in itself be grounds for rejection. Reviewers are expected to assess submissions based on CCC’s review criteria, which are included with each review invitation.
Reviewer Use of GenAI Tools
To protect author confidentiality and maintain scholarly integrity:
- Reviewers may not input any portion of a manuscript into a GenAI platform, including for summarizing, rewriting, or assessing.
- Reviewers may use GenAI tools for minor tasks, such as drafting their own reviewer comments or notes, provided that
- the manuscript is not copied or quoted directly into the tool and
- the review remains the product of the reviewer’s own critical judgment.
Declining a Review
Reviewers who object to engaging with work that involves GenAI, due to professional or ethical beliefs, are encouraged to decline the review invitation and state their reasoning in the provided response form. CCC respects these professional boundaries while maintaining fairness in review assignments.
For Editors
CCC is committed to facilitating responsible editing practices in response to and in connection with GenAI use through
- ongoing conversations with our editorial board, authors, and reviewers;
- integration of GenAI-related disclosures and practices into our workflows; and
- periodic review and revision of this policy as technologies and ethical concerns evolve.
In Sum
This policy is not punitive but provides guidance for writers, reviewers, and editors. It clarifies that
- authors must disclose GenAI use transparently and specifically;
- reviewers must not rely on GenAI to conduct the review itself, nor compromise manuscript confidentiality;
- editors will ensure that disclosure is not a basis for bias while making final decisions; and
- all parties are accountable for upholding the values of human-centered scholarship and transparent engagement.
This policy reflects the journal’s ongoing effort to balance open inquiry, fair use, and ethical responsibility with the field’s evolving understandings of both the possibilities and the limitations of GenAI. It is neither a blanket endorsement nor an outright rejection of these tools. Rather, it recognizes the complexity of the current moment and seeks to support honest, reflective, and dialogic practices in writing, editing, and publishing. CCC will continue to revise this policy as technologies, needs, and scholarly practices develop.
We encourage all authors and reviewers to consult this policy prior to submission or review.
The CCC editorial team wishes to thank the 2025 CCC AI Task Force (Ira Allen, Antonio Byrd, John Gallagher, and Sherry Rankins-Robertson) for their diligent work in generating the working policy document from which this final policy was drawn. We also thank our editorial board for their feedback throughout the drafting process.
