Do journal AI policies prohibit using an AI reviewer on your own manuscript?

Journal AI policies usually address two different situations and treat them very differently. Policies restricting AI in peer review govern referees handling someone else’s confidential manuscript, and frequently prohibit uploading that manuscript to any external service. Policies for authors using AI on their own work generally permit it and require disclosure instead. Establishing which one applies to you resolves most of the uncertainty around these tools.

The two are often printed on the same page, under the same heading, which is how they get conflated.

Why the referee restriction is strict

A manuscript sent to a referee is confidential material belonging to someone else, shared under an expectation that it will not be distributed further.

Uploading it to a third-party service is a distribution the author did not agree to, which is why publishers treat it as a breach regardless of that service’s privacy terms. The restriction is about consent and custody rather than about the technology, and a better privacy policy does not cure it. If you are an assigned referee, assume the prohibition applies.

Why the author position is different

Your own unpublished manuscript is yours to process.

Publishers who have addressed author use generally ask for disclosure of what was used and for what purpose, hold the author responsible for the content regardless of the tools involved, and decline to list an AI system as an author. None of that amounts to a prohibition. Reading it as one costs authors the use of tools they are permitted to use, which is the most common practical consequence of the confusion.

What a disclosure statement usually contains

A workable disclosure names the tool, states what it was used for, and confirms that the authors reviewed the output and take responsibility for the result.

A statement covering a manuscript review might record that an AI reviewing tool was used to obtain feedback on a draft, and that all revisions were made and verified by the authors. Check the target journal’s wording before submission, since some specify a particular section for it and a few ask for it in the cover letter instead.

Where funders and institutions add requirements

Journal policy is not the only policy in play.

Funders increasingly address AI use in grant applications and reporting, and institutions may restrict which services can receive unpublished research data regardless of what a publisher permits. When these conflict, the strictest applicable rule governs, and the institutional one is usually the strictest. Is it safe to upload a manuscript to ChatGPT covers how to check your institution’s position, and the procurement checklist is what your research office will likely work from.

Where PerfectPaper fits

PerfectPaper is an author-side tool. You use it on your own manuscript before submission, which places it under the disclosure regime rather than the referee prohibition.

Accounts are limited to verified academic researchers, and your content is never used to train a model — not the paper, not the model’s reasoning, not its reply, not the derived metadata. That addresses the question an institutional policy is most likely to ask, and how the guarantee is enforced explains what holds it up.

Review my manuscript

Frequently asked questions

Can I use AI to review my own paper before submitting?

Generally yes. Publisher policies for authors typically permit AI assistance and ask for disclosure. The prohibitions you may have read usually apply to peer reviewers handling another author’s confidential manuscript.

Do I have to disclose that I used an AI tool on my manuscript?

Usually yes. Most publishers ask authors to state which tool was used and for what purpose, and to confirm the authors remain responsible for the content. Check the target journal’s wording, since placement varies.

Can a peer reviewer upload a manuscript to an AI tool?

Generally no. Manuscripts under review are confidential material belonging to the author, and most publishers prohibit referees from uploading them to external services regardless of that service’s privacy terms.

Can an AI tool be listed as an author?

No. Publishers that have addressed this are consistent that an AI system cannot be an author, because authorship carries accountability that a tool cannot hold.

Does using an AI tool count as research misconduct?

Not on its own. Undisclosed use where disclosure is required, or a referee breaching confidentiality, can be treated as misconduct. Disclosed author-side use of a tool on your own manuscript is ordinary practice.