Artificial intelligence tools are rapidly evolving, and APS Journals continue to observe and learn about their uses from our authors and reviewers.
AI tools may be used to assist with aspects of research, manuscript preparation, and peer review. We are committed to establishing clear boundaries where human judgment is required.
This policy governs the use of AI by authors during manuscript preparation and by reviewers during peer review.
Any AI used to conduct the actual research (e.g., data analysis) must, like any tool, be disclosed within the paper’s methods section.
AI assistance in preparing a submitted manuscript or conducting a peer review must follow the disclosure standards outlined below.
We will continue to monitor AI’s capabilities and limitations, updating these guidelines as the technology evolves.
AI tools cannot replace authors’ expertise, judgment, or accountability. An AI program cannot be held accountable and cannot be listed as an author. Authors are fully responsible for accuracy and must review and refine all AI-generated content.
Authors must keep a record of any AI use and disclose any substantive uses in the submitted paper (see FAQ for more details).
Authors should state:
The editors may request more documentation to support transparency if concerns emerge. Authors are not required to disclose the use of AI to polish, condense, or otherwise lightly edit the text.
Authors must check the AI tool terms and conditions to ensure the tool claims no rights over their content and imposes no usage limits. As terms and conditions change over time, please revisit these terms regularly, especially regarding privacy and data protection.
AI can be used for data visualizations, but authors are responsible for verifying the accuracy of all AI-generated figures or graphics. Authors must ensure these images do not violate third-party copyrights, licensing agreements, or attribution requirements. Authors must continue to follow all APS journals Editorial Policies and Practices to ensure that the manuscript is original and that proper permissions have been obtained. Any images or non-textual media should be factual, scientifically correct, and accurately represent the content of the paper.
At this time, APS does not use AI-generated art for key images, cover images, or other images on its websites or in promotional materials unless they are from trusted third-party sources or are an allowed AI-generated data-visualization from the paper.
Reviewers may use AI to:
AI may support writing but cannot replace reviewer expertise and judgment. Reviewers are fully responsible for accuracy and must review and refine all AI-generated content.
If AI is used to help draft or edit a review beyond polishing, condensing, or otherwise lightly editing the text, disclosure is required. Reviewers should state, in a note to the editor:
Editors may request more documentation to support transparency.
Reviewers must check the AI tool terms and conditions before use. Because review materials are confidential, AI tools may only be used if their terms of use state that uploaded manuscripts or reports will not be used as training data. Authors have not consented to their unpublished work being shared with AI systems, and unreviewed manuscripts may contain errors that could propagate through training datasets. As a result, uploading manuscripts and reports (in total or in part) to unrestricted AI tools is not permitted.
Reviewers must also ensure the tool claims no rights over their content and imposes no usage limits. As terms and conditions change over time, please revisit these terms regularly, especially regarding privacy and data protection. At all times, reviewers are responsible for the final report and must take care that mistakes made by the AI do not slip through. Failure to do so undermines the peer review process and may cause a publication ethics investigation.
AI tools present opportunities to support the peer review process but cannot replace editorial judgment and decisions. Editors may only use APS-managed and licensed AI tools, which are vetted to ensure that uploaded content is never used as training data. Within those tools, editors may use AI to assist with certain tasks, such as identifying potential reviewers, polishing or condensing text, or drafting online summaries.
If AI is used in editorial writing beyond polishing, condensing, or otherwise lightly editing the text, disclosure is required, including but not limited to:
Substantive AI use includes, but is not limited to, assistance with:
Any substantive use must be disclosed in the paper itself.
Contact the editor directly or raise the issue in the confidential comments to the editors of your report. The editor will assess the situation and take appropriate action.
You may upload your document to an AI program under the terms described above. Please be aware that AI programs have been reported to introduce errors, including inadvertent plagiarism, and it is the author’s responsibility to check the output for factual and scientific errors.
The terms and conditions of AI programs are often not forthcoming about this. Look for affirmative statements that input will not be used. If in doubt, choose another program, or forego AI entirely.
Alert the editor via the notes-to-editor section of your submission. Do not make accusations or assumptions. Criticism in the report may still be valid and should be addressed in good faith. If hallucinated references or scientific inaccuracies make responding impossible, alert the editor before resubmitting.
No, reviewers should avoid uploading any peer review materials that reveal confidential information.