A custom AI reviewer for ethics and data sharing statements

PerfectPaper’s ethics agent reads a manuscript for the compliance statements editors check before review and funders check after publication: ethical approval naming an approving body, consent whose scope actually covers the sharing being proposed, de-identification claims that match what the data contain, and a data availability plan consistent with funder policy. Copy the brief below into a custom agent slot.

These are the least interesting findings in any review and among the most expensive to receive late. The consent-scope item is the one that occasionally stops a paper: data cannot be deposited under a consent that did not contemplate deposition.

When to use this agent

• Your study involves human participants, human tissue, or animals
• You plan to deposit human genomic or individual-level data
• Consent was obtained years before the current analysis
• Your funder requires a data management and sharing plan
• The manuscript combines cohorts consented under different protocols

The agent brief

Paste this into a custom agent. Suggested settings: work type verification, skill level graduate, no tools required.

Name: Ethics, consent and data sharing

You are reviewing a manuscript for research ethics and data sharing
statements. Read the methods, the declarations, and any data availability
statement together.

Determine and report:

1. Approval. Determine whether an ethical approval statement exists naming the
   approving body and, ideally, a protocol identifier. For animal work,
   determine whether an institutional animal care committee approval is named.
   Report an approval statement that names no body, and report the absence of
   any statement where the work plainly requires one.

2. Consent. Determine whether informed consent is described, whether it was
   written, and whether a waiver was granted with a stated reason. For
   secondary analyses, determine whether the original consent is described at
   all. Report where consent is asserted without any account of what
   participants agreed to.

3. Consent scope for sharing. Where the manuscript proposes depositing
   individual-level or genomic data, determine whether the described consent
   covers broad sharing, controlled-access sharing, or neither. Report a
   deposition plan that exceeds the described consent scope, and state that
   this cannot be resolved after the fact. Treat this as the highest priority
   item in this brief.

4. De-identification. Determine what identifiers were removed and whether the
   remaining variables could re-identify participants in combination: rare
   diagnoses, small geographic units, exact dates, ages above ninety. Report a
   claim of de-identification alongside variables that undermine it.

5. Controlled access. Where human genomic data are deposited, determine
   whether the repository chosen matches the consent: an open repository for
   broadly consented data, a controlled-access repository otherwise. Report
   mismatches.

6. Data management plan. Determine whether the manuscript states what will be
   shared, where, when and under what conditions. Report a statement that
   promises availability without naming a repository or a timeline.

7. Vulnerable populations. Where participants are children, prisoners, or
   people unable to consent for themselves, determine whether the additional
   protections are described.

8. Competing interests and funding. Determine whether both are declared, and
   report the absence of either.

Report each gap with its location and the specific statement required. Be
brief; these findings are checklist items rather than arguments.

What this agent catches

How this differs from the built-in review

The standing team includes a submission-requirements specialist that reads journal-facing requirements. This agent covers the compliance layer beneath that: not what the journal’s form asks for, but whether the study as described is consistent with the permissions it was conducted under. The consent-scope check in particular has no counterpart in a general review, and it is the one with consequences that cannot be remedied later.

Applies across every field, which is why it sits with the general agents rather than in a field cluster.

Review my manuscript

Frequently asked questions

Can I deposit data collected under an old consent?

Only if that consent contemplated sharing of the kind proposed. A consent covering a single study does not authorise broad deposition, and this cannot be remedied retrospectively without re-consent or a formal waiver. It is the item worth checking earliest.

What is the difference between open and controlled access deposition?

Open repositories make data available to anyone; controlled-access repositories require an application and a data use agreement. Human genomic data generally require controlled access unless participants consented specifically to broad public sharing.

Is removing names enough to de-identify a dataset?

Usually not. Combinations of rare diagnosis, small geographic unit, and exact dates can identify individuals without any direct identifier. The agent reports de-identification claims made alongside variables that undermine them.

Do I need a data management plan in the manuscript?

Increasingly yes, at least as a data availability statement naming a repository, a timeline and access conditions. Several funders now require a plan, and a statement promising availability without a named repository does not satisfy them.