Use of AI Tools Guidelines: Authors, Reviewers & Editors

Guidelines on the Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Tools in Scientific Writing

This policy pertains to the use of AI in the composition of scientific articles for publication in our journal. AI-assisted data analysis or research methodologies are not affected by this policy.

Only to enhance language and readability can one employ generative AI or AI-assisted technologies during manuscript preparation. In doing that, human oversight is essential, as AI-generated content may appear credible but could contain inaccuracies, omissions, or biases. Authors must carefully review and edit AI-assisted output, as they bear full responsibility for the final content.

Authors must disclose any use of AI or AI-assisted tools in their manuscript, and the published work will include a statement. This disclosure fosters trust among authors, readers, reviewers, and editors while ensuring adherence to the terms of use of the respective tools.

We must not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as authors or co-authors, nor should we cite them as such. Authorship entails responsibilities that only humans can fulfill, including verifying the accuracy and integrity of the work, approving the final version, and ensuring originality and compliance with ethical publishing standards. Authors should review the journal’s ethics before submission.

Restrictions on AI-Generated or AI-Altered Figures, Images, and Artwork

We prohibit the use of generative AI and AI-assisted tools for creating or modifying images, figures, or artwork in submitted manuscripts. This procedure includes but is not limited to adding, removing, enhancing, or obscuring elements within an image. Minor adjustments (e.g., brightness, contrast, or color balance) are permitted only if they do not distort or erase original data. Suspected image manipulation may be investigated using forensic tools.

An exception applies if AI-assisted imaging is integral to the research methodology (e.g., surrogate samples, biomedical imaging). In such cases, authors must provide a detailed, reproducible description in the methods section, specifying the AI tool’s name, version, manufacturer, and usage policies. Authors may also be required to submit unedited source images for editorial review.

It is not permissible to use generative AI for creating graphical abstracts. However, limited use in cover art may be allowed with prior approval from the journal editor and publisher, provided proper rights clearance and attribution are confirmed.

AI in peer review

Can I use AI to help me review manuscripts?

Authors’ trust in peer review depends on maintaining strict confidentiality of unpublished work. Manuscripts under review are confidential and must not be uploaded to AI Technologies, whether in full or in part. Authors have not given permission for reviewers or editors to share their unpublished work with AI Technologies.

However, there are meaningful ways reviewers can use AI while protecting manuscript confidentiality.

What editors and reviewers can do safely:

  • Use AI to organize your thoughts and prioritize feedback
  • Use AI to improve review clarity and tone or translate your review
  • Ask AI general questions about research methods or statistical approaches without referencing manuscript specifics

Do I need to disclose AI use to the author or editor?

We require disclosure of AI when it’s used for drafting assistance in your reviews. When disclosing AI use in your review, we recommend sharing:

  • AI Technology's name and version
  • Date/year of use
  • AI Technology's role in drafting or editing assistance
  • The author’s role in directing or reviewing the work of the AI Technology

Example:

"GPT-5 was used to prioritize and polish review feedback. All original review feedback was provided by the peer reviewer, and all AI-generated content was reviewed, revised, and approved by the peer reviewer prior to sending this review.”

How should editors and reviewers respond to AI use in manuscripts?

AI use in manuscript development is not grounds for rejection. Editorial evaluation should focus on the quality, integrity, disclosure, and clarity of communication in the research, regardless of the Technologies used to support manuscript development.

We encourage authors to use AI responsibly when it helps them communicate their research more effectively and advance scientific discovery. Rather than asking “was AI used here?”, the more important questions are: “Does this manuscript meet the editorial policies of my journal and the expectations of its readers? and “Are the disclosures regarding AI use consistent with what’s presented in the manuscript?”

By responding to AI use with clarity and fairness, editors help create a culture that encourages transparency, supports innovation, and strengthens trust in the peer review process.

If concerns arise during review, editors should:

  • Start with author communication: If you notice issues that concern you, or concerns are raised to you by a peer reviewer—whether you suspect AI involvement or not—reach out to the author to discuss them directly. Focus your conversation on the specific problems you've identified and seek clarity from the author
  • Seek support: Contact journal support team

Common issues that warrant editorial review:

  • Citations that don't adequately support claims
  • Unclear methodology or analysis
  • Poor logical flow or organization
  • Missing context or background information
  • Writing quality that doesn't meet your journal's standards

Evidence of integrity concerns that may warrant rejection:

  • Fabricated citations or references
  • Falsified data or methodology
  • Inability to verify research when requested
  • Failure to address substantive concerns about research validity

In the event of potential integrity concerns, editors should follow their journal’s and Wiley’s standard policies and processes for handling them and consult with Wiley’s Integrity Assurance and Case Resolution team as needed.

By handling concerns in this way, editors ensure manuscripts are evaluated fairly while helping the community adapt confidently to new Technologies.

What's next for AI in peer review?

The peer review system continues to evolve in response to ongoing needs: finding qualified reviewers, managing increasing submission volumes, maintaining quality standards, and addressing increasingly sophisticated integrity challenges. AI Technologies are already helping address some of these areas and will likely play a larger role in the future.