Artificial Intelligence in Research
Human authors remain responsible for AI-generated statements they incorporate into research manuscripts, but responsibility does not mean every error constitutes misconduct. Learn how accountability applies to citations, methods, findings, interpretations, and corrections.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
AI-assisted grammar correction does not always require disclosure, but publisher policies differ. Learn when proofreading may be exempt, how substantive rewriting changes the obligation, and why the actual edits matter more than the name of the tool.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
AI-assisted literature searching may require disclosure when it materially affects how research evidence is identified, screened, or selected. Learn why exploratory searching differs from systematic evidence retrieval and how to report AI tools, search procedures, verification, and limitations.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Researchers should document how consequential AI outputs were verified, particularly when they influence research methods, evidence, analysis, or findings. Learn what constitutes meaningful verification, how to preserve supporting evidence, and why claiming that AI-generated content was reviewed is not equivalent to demonstrating that it was checked.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Rejected AI suggestions may be worth documenting when they influence consequential research decisions. Learn when discarded recommendations form part of the research audit trail, how to record reasons for rejection, and why researchers need not preserve every unsuccessful AI interaction.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Adequate AI-use documentation depends on how substantially AI influenced the research and what evidence may be needed to reconstruct consequential decisions. Learn how to balance transparency, reproducibility, confidentiality, and practical recordkeeping without preserving every interaction unnecessarily.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI may help reviewers organize and refine their comments, but its use is subject to journal policies, confidentiality obligations, and independent scholarly judgment. Learn which forms of assistance may be appropriate and why reviewers remain responsible for their reports.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Authors may reasonably disagree with peer reviewers when recommendations are unsupported, methodologically inappropriate, or inconsistent with the study's objectives. Generative AI can help articulate a respectful response, but the scientific justification must come from the authors and be verified against the manuscript and relevant evidence.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI can invent manuscript changes while drafting a response-to-reviewers letter, including nonexistent analyses, revised sections, citations, and page references. Learn why these hallucinations occur, how they differ from future revision promises, and how authors can verify the response against the actual manuscript.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI may describe a partially addressed reviewer concern as fully resolved, even when the manuscript contains only limited clarification or acknowledgment. Learn how to distinguish genuine resolution from partial responses, verify claims against the revised manuscript, and avoid overstating the significance of revisions.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
AI-assisted manuscript revisions and response-to-reviewers letters should be checked against the actual manuscript, analyses, and reviewer requests. Learn how to identify invented changes, unsupported claims, and discrepancies before resubmission.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI can recommend convincing academic journals that do not exist, sometimes accompanied by fabricated publishers or indexing claims. Learn how to recognize these errors and verify journal identities before submission.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI may provide outdated or incorrect Journal Impact Factors, CiteScores, quartiles, and rankings. Learn how to verify metric years, database sources, and subject categories before making publication decisions.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI can help researchers prepare manuscripts for journal submission by organizing requirements, checking documents, and improving presentation. Learn which tasks AI can assist with and what authors must independently verify before submitting.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI can suggest relevant keywords for a research manuscript, but plausible terms are not always suitable indexing terms. Learn how to select, verify, and refine keywords that accurately represent your research.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI can compare a manuscript with journal author guidelines and flag possible compliance problems. Learn which checks AI can perform, which require verification, and how to avoid outdated instructions.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI can help identify journal submission requirements, but it may overlook instructions scattered across journal websites, policy pages, and submission portals. Learn how to recognize these gaps and verify requirements before submitting.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI may provide outdated journal author guidelines even when its advice sounds accurate. Learn why instructions change, which outdated requirements can cause submission problems, and how to verify the latest policies.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
AI-assisted submission materials may contain inaccurate claims, invented details, inconsistent metadata, or incomplete declarations. Learn what researchers should verify before submitting manuscripts and supporting documents to academic journals.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI can help researchers draft, organize, and revise grant applications, but it cannot establish a project's scientific merit or invent supporting evidence. Learn which tasks AI can assist with, where the risks arise, and how to retain responsibility for the proposal.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI can help researchers understand complicated funding calls, extract application requirements, and identify evaluation criteria. However, its interpretations may omit conditions or misrepresent instructions, making verification against the official announcement essential.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI can help researchers explain why a proposed study matters, connect research gaps to meaningful consequences, and strengthen the significance section of a grant application. However, persuasive claims must be supported by evidence rather than generated assumptions.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI can help researchers organize a grant's research approach, identify methodological gaps, and improve the explanation of study procedures. However, the proposed methods, feasibility claims, and analytical decisions must remain scientifically justified and independently verifiable.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI can support grant preparation, but the applicant must retain genuine intellectual ownership of the proposed research. Learn how to distinguish editorial assistance from substantive AI development and protect the originality of a grant application.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI can help researchers organize findings, develop presentation slides, prepare visual explanations, and adapt scientific content for different audiences. However, AI-assisted presentations require verification to prevent fabricated results, oversimplified methods, misleading figures, and unsupported conclusions.
Read Guide →
