Search across guide titles, topics, keywords, and content throughout the Researcher's Field Guide.
Showing 526–550 of 654 results
AI systems can perform tasks resembling scholarly contributions, but do they satisfy the requirements for academic authorship? Examine the four ICMJE criteria individually and understand why producing research content is not equivalent to qualifying as an author.
Read Guide →Extensive AI assistance does not reduce a researcher's responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of a manuscript. Learn how authorship accountability applies when AI contributes to writing, analysis, interpretation, and other substantive research activities.
Read Guide →AI systems may perform tasks resembling recognized author contribution roles, but that does not make them eligible authors. Learn how CRediT distinguishes contributorship from authorship and how to report AI-assisted writing, analysis, and other research activities accurately.
Read Guide →Submitting AI-generated text without meaningful review raises serious questions about academic authorship and accountability. Learn why a researcher must be able to evaluate and defend the manuscript, what meaningful review entails, and how publisher policies apply.
Read Guide →Human authors remain responsible for AI-generated statements they incorporate into research manuscripts, but responsibility does not mean every error constitutes misconduct. Learn how accountability applies to citations, methods, findings, interpretations, and corrections.
Read Guide →AI-assisted grammar correction does not always require disclosure, but publisher policies differ. Learn when proofreading may be exempt, how substantive rewriting changes the obligation, and why the actual edits matter more than the name of the tool.
Read Guide →AI-assisted literature searching may require disclosure when it materially affects how research evidence is identified, screened, or selected. Learn why exploratory searching differs from systematic evidence retrieval and how to report AI tools, search procedures, verification, and limitations.
Read Guide →Researchers should document how consequential AI outputs were verified, particularly when they influence research methods, evidence, analysis, or findings. Learn what constitutes meaningful verification, how to preserve supporting evidence, and why claiming that AI-generated content was reviewed is not equivalent to demonstrating that it was checked.
Read Guide →Rejected AI suggestions may be worth documenting when they influence consequential research decisions. Learn when discarded recommendations form part of the research audit trail, how to record reasons for rejection, and why researchers need not preserve every unsuccessful AI interaction.
Read Guide →Adequate AI-use documentation depends on how substantially AI influenced the research and what evidence may be needed to reconstruct consequential decisions. Learn how to balance transparency, reproducibility, confidentiality, and practical recordkeeping without preserving every interaction unnecessarily.
Read Guide →Generative AI may help reviewers organize and refine their comments, but its use is subject to journal policies, confidentiality obligations, and independent scholarly judgment. Learn which forms of assistance may be appropriate and why reviewers remain responsible for their reports.
Read Guide →Authors may reasonably disagree with peer reviewers when recommendations are unsupported, methodologically inappropriate, or inconsistent with the study's objectives. Generative AI can help articulate a respectful response, but the scientific justification must come from the authors and be verified against the manuscript and relevant evidence.
Read Guide →Generative AI can invent manuscript changes while drafting a response-to-reviewers letter, including nonexistent analyses, revised sections, citations, and page references. Learn why these hallucinations occur, how they differ from future revision promises, and how authors can verify the response against the actual manuscript.
Read Guide →Generative AI may describe a partially addressed reviewer concern as fully resolved, even when the manuscript contains only limited clarification or acknowledgment. Learn how to distinguish genuine resolution from partial responses, verify claims against the revised manuscript, and avoid overstating the significance of revisions.
Read Guide →AI-assisted manuscript revisions and response-to-reviewers letters should be checked against the actual manuscript, analyses, and reviewer requests. Learn how to identify invented changes, unsupported claims, and discrepancies before resubmission.
Read Guide →Generative AI can recommend convincing academic journals that do not exist, sometimes accompanied by fabricated publishers or indexing claims. Learn how to recognize these errors and verify journal identities before submission.
Read Guide →Generative AI may provide outdated or incorrect Journal Impact Factors, CiteScores, quartiles, and rankings. Learn how to verify metric years, database sources, and subject categories before making publication decisions.
Read Guide →Generative AI can help researchers prepare manuscripts for journal submission by organizing requirements, checking documents, and improving presentation. Learn which tasks AI can assist with and what authors must independently verify before submitting.
Read Guide →Generative AI can suggest relevant keywords for a research manuscript, but plausible terms are not always suitable indexing terms. Learn how to select, verify, and refine keywords that accurately represent your research.
Read Guide →Generative AI can compare a manuscript with journal author guidelines and flag possible compliance problems. Learn which checks AI can perform, which require verification, and how to avoid outdated instructions.
Read Guide →Generative AI can help identify journal submission requirements, but it may overlook instructions scattered across journal websites, policy pages, and submission portals. Learn how to recognize these gaps and verify requirements before submitting.
Read Guide →Generative AI may provide outdated journal author guidelines even when its advice sounds accurate. Learn why instructions change, which outdated requirements can cause submission problems, and how to verify the latest policies.
Read Guide →AI-assisted submission materials may contain inaccurate claims, invented details, inconsistent metadata, or incomplete declarations. Learn what researchers should verify before submitting manuscripts and supporting documents to academic journals.
Read Guide →Generative AI can help researchers draft, organize, and revise grant applications, but it cannot establish a project's scientific merit or invent supporting evidence. Learn which tasks AI can assist with, where the risks arise, and how to retain responsibility for the proposal.
Read Guide →Generative AI can help researchers understand complicated funding calls, extract application requirements, and identify evaluation criteria. However, its interpretations may omit conditions or misrepresent instructions, making verification against the official announcement essential.
Read Guide →