Artificial Intelligence in Research
Uploading a confidential research grant proposal to an AI tool may expose unpublished ideas, sensitive data, or restricted information. Learn when uploading may be permissible, what protections to verify, and how to use AI without unnecessarily disclosing confidential research.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Research funders can restrict generative AI in grant applications and peer review, but the rules may differ considerably between applicants and reviewers. Learn how NIH and NSF policies illustrate these differences and what researchers should verify before using AI.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
AI disclosure requirements vary among research funders, and not every use of generative AI requires the same treatment. Learn when disclosure may be mandatory, what information to report, and why transparency does not automatically make prohibited AI use acceptable.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Grant reviewers generally cannot upload confidential research proposals to AI tools without authorization from the funding organization. Learn why even partial uploads can breach confidentiality, how NIH and NSF policies differ, and what reviewers should do instead.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI can introduce confidentiality risks when reviewers process unpublished grant applications through unauthorized systems. Learn how disclosure, retention, third-party processing, and information leakage affect research grant review and what safeguards are necessary.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI can summarize lengthy grant applications, but reviewers must first establish whether the funder permits its use. Learn how AI summaries can omit consequential details, distort scientific arguments, and affect reviewer judgment.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI may identify methodological weaknesses in research grant applications, including mismatched objectives, sampling concerns, and analytical gaps. However, its criticisms can be inaccurate or inappropriate, and reviewers must consider funder restrictions before using AI.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
AI-assisted grant scoring can reproduce or introduce biases that affect which research proposals receive favorable evaluations. Understand where these biases arise, how they can influence funding decisions, and what safeguards researchers and funders should consider.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI may favor familiar research approaches over unconventional proposals, potentially disadvantaging scientific novelty. Explore emerging empirical evidence, why this bias may occur, and how research funders can protect innovative ideas during evaluation.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
AI systems trained on previous research funding decisions may reproduce inequalities embedded in those decisions. Learn how historical funding patterns become algorithmic biases, why predictive accuracy does not establish fairness, and how funders can investigate the risks.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Applicants may reasonably expect to know when AI contributes to evaluating their research proposals, especially when it influences scientific judgments or funding decisions. Explore what meaningful disclosure should include, how policies differ, and why transparency must be accompanied by accountability.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Research funders can use AI to assist with administrative screening without delegating scientific judgment. Learn which tasks are suitable for automation, where administrative checks can become consequential decisions, and what safeguards are needed.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
AI can assist with research funding administration and selected evaluation tasks, but consequential scientific judgments require clear accountability. Learn how funders can establish defensible boundaries between AI support and human decision-making.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
AI-assisted grant review can influence research careers, scientific priorities, and the allocation of scarce funding. Understand why these decisions are particularly consequential, how AI-related errors can cause harm, and what safeguards research funders should consider.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
AI-generated research code can be reproducible, but generating working code is only the beginning. Researchers must preserve the code, computational environment, dependencies, data-processing decisions, and verification evidence needed for others to reproduce the analysis.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Not every AI-generated suggestion needs its own commit, but changes that affect research code should be traceable. Learn how researchers can use version control to preserve analytical decisions, investigate errors, and reproduce published results.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
AI-generated research code should generally have unit tests when its functions affect data processing, calculations, or analytical results. Learn how to design meaningful tests, establish independent expected outcomes, and recognize the limits of passing test suites.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Researchers should define the expected behavior of AI-generated code rather than rely entirely on AI-proposed tests. Learn how independent test cases connect computational verification to research methods and help detect plausible but consequential coding errors.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Saving an AI-generated script is not enough to ensure that others can reproduce a research analysis years later. Learn which code, data, software environments, verification records, and AI-assistance documentation researchers should preserve, and how to create an identifiable archival release.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI can help researchers and communications teams draft press releases about scientific findings, but engaging headlines and concise explanations may exaggerate conclusions or conceal uncertainty. Learn how to verify claims, quotations, statistics, and practical implications before distributing AI-assisted research announcements.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI may exaggerate research findings when asked to make scientific communication more engaging. Learn how stronger headlines, selective reporting, unsupported causal claims, and inflated practical implications can distort the evidence, and how researchers can prevent these problems.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI may remove uncertainty when simplifying research for public audiences, making qualified findings appear definitive. Learn how to preserve statistical uncertainty, methodological limitations, and appropriate scientific caution without making research communication unnecessarily difficult to understand.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Public-facing AI-generated research summaries should undergo systematic verification against the original paper. Learn when line-by-line review is appropriate, how to trace claims to evidence, identify omissions and distortions, and document verification before public distribution.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI can introduce bias into scientific and academic writing by favoring familiar theories, altering uncertainty, standardizing culturally specific expressions, or selectively emphasizing evidence. Researchers should verify AI-assisted revisions against their original arguments, sources, and findings.
Read Guide →
Artificial Intelligence in Research
Generative AI may overlook local research literature because regional journals, institutional repositories, non-English publications, and locally relevant reports are unevenly represented in its accessible information. Researchers should verify AI-generated literature recommendations through independent searches and avoid interpreting missing AI results as evidence that relevant studies do not exist.
Read Guide →
