Skip to main content

High-impact AI in submission, revision and post-publication

The guidance below highlights impactful applications of AI during submission, revision and post-publication with practical considerations and prompt templates you can copy and paste to adapt to your own needs.

Aim: Respond and share more effectively and make your work easier for others to trust and reuse.

Female Scientist Sits at His Workplace in Laboratory, Uses Personal Computer. Screen Shows Analyze of DNA. I the Background Genetics Research Centre with Innovative Equipment.

High-impact use

  • Prepare a reproducibility pack: data, code, environment details, documentation, reporting standard alignment.

  • Cross check journal policies and author guides for the journal you are planning to submit to.

  • Find a scope match journal.

  • Draft structured reviewer responses that clearly state what changed and where.

  • Create plain-language summaries that keep the message accurate, cautious, and accessible.

Safety check

  • Confidentiality first: don’t paste confidential manuscripts, reviewer reports, or unpublished content tools that are unauthorized for that data.

  • Ensure responses match what you actually did - AI can polish wording, but you own the substance and accuracy.

  • Record whether AI influenced study design, analysis choices, interpretation or wording of key claims, and what you verified.

Copy and paste prompts

📑 Copy and paste prompt: scope match and journal shortlist

Help me find journals that are a good scope match based on a public-facing summary (no confidential text).

My paper (non-confidential):

- One-sentence contribution: [paste]

- Field(s): [paste]

- Study type: [RCT/observational/methods/qualitative/etc.]

- Population/data type (broad): [paste]

- Key keywords (6–10): [paste]

- What it is NOT about (to avoid mismatch): [paste]

Constraints (optional):

- Open access required? [yes/no]

- Speed/format priorities: [e.g. rapid, data note, methods]

- Any exclusions: [e.g. avoid mega-journals]

Output:

- A shortlist of 8–12 journals with a one-line ‘why it fits’ for each

- For each: likely article type fit + any immediate scope red flags

- A short ranking rubric I can use to choose (scope fit, audience, methods fit, transparency requirements)

Rules:

- Use only publicly available journal information; don’t assume acceptance likelihood.

- If you’re uncertain about fit, label it ‘Needs scope check’ and explain what to verify.

Explore all research stages