EditverseHow to acknowledge medical writing support: wording that satisfies ICMJE and GPP 2022
What an acknowledgment of writing or editing support has to contain, where each disclosure goes, and model sentences for editing only, drafting from an author outline, and sponsor-funded support.
Key points
- Under the ICMJE Recommendations (January 2026), writing assistance, technical editing, language editing and proofreading do not on their own qualify someone for authorship. The person is acknowledged and the contribution is specified.
- A complete acknowledgment states what was done, who did it (name, qualification and affiliation, or the organisation), and who paid for it.
- The funding of writing support is a source of support. It belongs in the acknowledgment or the funding statement, whichever the journal uses, and the two must agree.
- The acknowledged person should give written permission to be named. Editors are advised to require it.
- Use of an AI tool for writing assistance is disclosed in the same section and in the cover letter, and is never listed as a contributor in the way a person is.
What the guidance asks for
Three documents govern how writing support is disclosed in medical journals. They agree with each other; they differ in how much detail they ask for.
| Source | Applies to | What it asks for |
|---|---|---|
| ICMJE Recommendations, updated January 2026 (Section II.A.3) | All manuscripts submitted to journals that follow the Recommendations | Contributors who meet fewer than all four authorship criteria are acknowledged, individually or as a group, with their contribution specified. Writing assistance and editing are named as examples of contributions that alone do not justify authorship. Written permission from each acknowledged person is advised.1 |
| GPP 2022 | Company-sponsored biomedical research: manuscripts, abstracts, posters, presentations, plain-language summaries | Authorship consistent with ICMJE, documented author direction and approval, and disclosure of medical writing support and of who funded it.2 |
| AMWA, EMWA and ISMPP joint position statement on the role of professional medical writers (January 2017) | Authors working with professional medical writers | Acknowledge the nature of the support, the name, highest relevant qualification and affiliation of the writer accountable for it, and the funding source. A writer who meets the ICMJE criteria is listed as a co-author.3 |
The joint position statement includes a template sentence. It was written when GPP3 was current and names GPP3; an acknowledgment written today for company-sponsored work should refer to GPP 2022, which is the current update.2
The five elements of a complete acknowledgment
- Nature of the support
- Say what was done in terms a reader can picture: language editing, formatting to journal style, preparing the first draft from the authors' outline and data, redrawing figures, checking references. "Editorial assistance" with nothing further does not tell the reader whether a comma or the whole Discussion was involved.
- Who provided it
- The ICMJE Recommendations allow individual or group acknowledgment. The 2017 joint statement asks for the name, highest relevant qualification and affiliation of the writer accountable for the support. Follow the target journal's instruction where it is more specific.
- Who paid for it
- Name the funder: the sponsor, a grant, the department, or the authors themselves. The ICMJE definition of sources of support includes support for the writing of the article.1
- Author control
- State that the authors directed the content, reviewed each draft and approved the final version. This is the point of the joint statement's list of author responsibilities: access to all relevant information, intellectual input before and during writing, and approval of the final text by all authors.3
- Standard followed
- For company-sponsored publications, a clause that the support was provided in accordance with GPP 2022. For investigator-initiated work this clause is optional.
Where each disclosure goes
| Place | Content |
|---|---|
| Acknowledgments section | The full statement: nature of support, provider, funder, author control |
| Funding or sources of support statement | The funder of the writing support, if the journal collects all funding in one statement. Wording must match the acknowledgment |
| Contributor statement | Authors' roles only. Under CRediT, "writing, original draft" and "writing, review and editing" describe contributions; the taxonomy does not decide who qualifies as an author, so a non-author writer is still reported under acknowledgments unless the journal's form provides a field for non-author contributors4 |
| Cover letter or submission form | A sentence confirming that writing support was used and is acknowledged, that the named person has agreed to be acknowledged, and any AI use |
| Disclosure forms | Each author's own relationships and activities, completed as the journal's form directs |
Model sentences for three scenarios
The sentences below are illustrative. Square brackets mark the facts to be filled in; nothing in them refers to a real study, person or company.
Scenario 1: editing only
The authors wrote the manuscript. An editor corrected language, checked consistency of terms, numbers and references, and formatted the files to the journal's style.
Illustrative wording
The authors thank [name, qualification], of [organisation, city, country], for language editing and formatting of the manuscript. This support was paid for by [the authors / department / grant number]. The authors wrote the manuscript and are responsible for its content.
Where the journal accepts acknowledgment of an organisation, the first clause becomes "The authors thank [organisation] for language editing and formatting of the manuscript".
Scenario 2: drafting from the authors' outline and data
The authors designed and ran the study, analysed the data or directed the analysis, and agreed an outline with the key messages. A medical writer prepared the first draft from the outline, the statistical output and the protocol; the authors revised it over several rounds and approved the final version.
Illustrative wording
Medical writing support was provided by [name, qualification], of [organisation, city, country], who prepared the first draft of the manuscript from the authors' outline, study protocol and statistical report, and incorporated the authors' revisions. The authors determined the content, interpreted the data, critically revised each draft and approved the final version. This support was funded by [funder].
This is the scenario where vague wording causes trouble. A reader who sees only "editorial assistance" and later learns that the first draft was written by someone else will read the gap as concealment, even where the authors directed every paragraph.
Scenario 3: support funded by a study sponsor
A company sponsored the study and paid an agency or a freelance writer to support the author group. GPP 2022 applies.
Illustrative wording
Medical writing support, under the direction of the authors, was provided by [name, qualification], of [agency, city, country], and was funded by [sponsor, city, country], in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP 2022) guidelines. The authors had full access to the study data, directed the development of the manuscript at all stages, and approved the final version for submission. The sponsor reviewed the manuscript for scientific accuracy; the decision to submit was made by the authors.
The last sentence must describe what actually happened. The ICMJE Recommendations ask for an explanation of the role of each source of support in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, writing of the report, and any restriction on submission, or a statement that the source had no such involvement.1
If an AI tool was also used
The ICMJE Recommendations (January 2026) place AI writing assistance in the acknowledgment section and ask for a description in the cover letter as well. A tool is described, with what it was used for; it is not thanked or credited as a contributor.1
Illustrative wording
[Tool name, version] was used to check grammar in the Methods and Results. The authors reviewed all changes and are responsible for the final text.
When the writer should be an author instead
The ICMJE criteria are cumulative: a substantial contribution to conception or design, or to the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data; drafting or critically revising the work; final approval; and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Drafting alone satisfies the second criterion and none of the others.1
A writer moves towards authorship when the work goes beyond expression into substance. A published analysis of authorship practice for medical writers gives examples of what a substantial intellectual contribution looks like in this setting, such as developing the protocol or choosing endpoints on the design side, and developing the interpretation in the Discussion on the data side.5 Where a writer has done that, the ICMJE rule works in both directions: everyone who meets all four criteria should be an author, and anyone who meets the first should be given the chance to meet the others. The 2017 joint statement says the same of professional writers.3
In practice the decision is made at the start. If the authors supply the question, the analysis and the interpretation, and the writer turns these into text that the authors then revise and approve, the writer is acknowledged. That is how our original research manuscript writing and medical manuscript editing are set up: authors keep authorship and accountability, and the support is acknowledged in line with the ICMJE Recommendations. The working arrangement for each manuscript type is described under journal manuscripts.
Permission, and the wording errors editors query
Because an acknowledgment can be read as endorsement of the data and conclusions, the ICMJE advises editors to require written permission from every person acknowledged.1 Obtain it before submission and keep it with the study file; an email that quotes the final acknowledgment text is enough for most journals.
The following patterns are the ones that prompt an editorial query.
- An acknowledgment that names a writer but no funder, where the funding statement names a sponsor.
- A funding statement that says "no funding" for a manuscript whose writing or editing was paid for by a company or grant.
- "Editorial assistance" used to cover preparation of the first draft.
- A writer listed under CRediT roles in the author contribution statement without being an author.
- A sentence stating the authors "meet ICMJE criteria" placed in the acknowledgment as a substitute for describing what the writer did.
- No acknowledgment at all, with a document history showing another person as the creator of the file.
What disclosure tells the reader
Acknowledged professional support has been studied. A cross-sectional study of randomised trial reports in open-access journals found that more of the articles with declared medical writing support reported at least half of the assessed CONSORT items completely, compared with articles without it, and a later systematic review examined the same question across reporting quality, ethics and timeliness.6,7 These are observational comparisons, so they show an association and not a cause. They do show that there is nothing to hide: a clear acknowledgment tells the editor that a trained writer worked on the reporting and that the authors directed and approved the result.
Do I have to acknowledge a language editing service?
Yes, where the journal follows the ICMJE Recommendations. Language editing is one of the listed examples of a contribution that is acknowledged. Many journals accept a one-sentence statement naming the service and who paid.
Can the acknowledgment name a company without naming a person?
The ICMJE Recommendations allow acknowledgment individually or as a group with the contribution specified. The 2017 joint position statement of AMWA, EMWA and ISMPP asks for the name and qualification of the accountable writer. Check the journal's instructions, and for sponsor-funded publications follow the sponsor's publication policy under GPP 2022.
Our study had no external funding and we paid for editing ourselves. What do we write?
State that the editing was paid for by the authors. The study can still be described as having no external funding; the two statements do not conflict as long as each is specific.
Does acknowledging a writer weaken the paper in review?
Editors expect the disclosure and ask for it. What draws attention is an undeclared contribution discovered later, or an acknowledgment too vague to interpret.
References
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Updated January 2026. icmje.org/recommendations
- DeTora LM, Toroser D, Sykes A, Vanderlinden C, Plunkett FJ, Lane T, et al. Good Publication Practice (GPP) guidelines for company-sponsored biomedical research: 2022 update. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175(9):1298-1304. PMID 36037471 · DOI
- American Medical Writers Association, European Medical Writers Association, International Society for Medical Publication Professionals. AMWA-EMWA-ISMPP joint position statement on the role of professional medical writers. January 2017. ismpp.org/joint-position-statements
- National Information Standards Organization. ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022, CRediT, Contributor Roles Taxonomy. 2022. credit.niso.org
- Stocks A, Simcoe D, Toroser D, DeTora L. Substantial contribution and accountability: best authorship practices for medical writers in biomedical publications. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018;34(6):1163-1168. PMID 29659302 · DOI
- Gattrell WT, Hopewell S, Young K, Farrow P, White R, Wager E, et al. Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(2):e010329. PMID 26899254 · DOI
- Evuarherhe O, Gattrell W, White R, Winchester CC. Professional medical writing support and the quality, ethics and timeliness of clinical trial reporting: a systematic review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4:14. PMID 31338209 · DOI