Generative AI Policy for Reviewers

Peer review rests on two things a machine cannot replace: expert judgement and confidentiality. DEPLOY therefore sets firm limits on the use of generative AI in review, following COPE guidance.

1. Manuscripts Must Never Be Uploaded to AI Tools

A manuscript under review is a confidential, unpublished document. Uploading it to a public AI service hands another person's work to a third party without consent and may breach the authors' copyright.

  • Do not copy, paste, or upload any part of the manuscript, abstract, figures, tables, code, or supporting data to ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, or similar services.
  • Do not ask an AI tool to summarise the manuscript, even for personal use.
  • Do not share the manuscript with colleagues, students, or assistants without the editor's written permission.

2. Review Reports Must Be Written by Humans

Assessment of novelty, methodological soundness, validity, and suitability for publication must come from your own expertise. Reports generated wholly or largely by AI are unacceptable and will result in withdrawal of the assignment.

3. Limited Permitted Use

You may use generative AI only to improve the grammar and clarity of a report you have already written, provided the processed text contains no content, findings, data, or specific ideas from the manuscript.

4. Disclosure

Any AI use during review must be declared in the Comments for the Editor field, naming the tool, version, and purpose. Undisclosed use is treated as a breach of review ethics.

5. Accountability

Reviewers are fully responsible for the content of their reports, including errors originating from AI. Breaches may lead to cancellation of the assignment, removal from the reviewer panel, and, in serious cases, notification of the reviewer's institution.

6. Do Not Judge Manuscripts by AI-Detector Scores

AI detectors are unreliable and frequently misclassify writing by non-native English speakers. If you suspect undisclosed AI use, report it to the editor with substantive reasons: unverifiable references, inconsistent data, irreproducible methods, not stylistic impressions alone.