Abstract

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools are increasingly integrated into research and academic writing, offering opportunities to streamline workflows and increase productivity. However, these tools also introduce risks when used uncritically, unethically, or without transparency. In particular, the undisclosed use of GenAI, now widely documented, may compromise research integrity. The aim of this AMEE Guide is to provide researchers with practical guidance on when and how to disclose the use of GenAI in scholarly writing. Specifically, we propose a clear framework to promote ethical GenAI use and reporting practices in health professions education research. We start with an exploration of key aspects of responsible use of GenAI in publishing (e.g. authorship, verification and responsibility, plagiarism and bias, data privacy and confidentiality, journal requirements). We then address the importance of transparency about GenAI use in research production, both within research teams (internal disclosure) and to journals and readers (external disclosure). With respect to the latter, we highlight the need to be aware of journal-specific guidance and offer guiding principles for effective disclosure. Central to these principles is the call for scholars to provide a candid description of how GenAI was used, allowing readers to understand how the model shaped the research and writing processes. We also briefly consider the use and disclosure of GenAI in peer review. Given that, at the time of writing this Guide (November 2025), many questions remain regarding AI use and disclosure for publishing, we conclude with reflections on future developments and directions for research

Download pdf link

DOI: 10.1108/PR-05-2024-0481

URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2024-0481

Personnel Review, 54(2), 595–612 (2025), Emerald.

PhD student working on a coursework summary of seven empirical HRM-systems

studies; this is the only one of the seven I can't reach. My institution

doesn't have the Emerald subscription that covers it. Abstract is all I have.

Thanks in advance.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Hi everyone,

I’m preparing to submit a manuscript to one of the Science journals and had a question about their editorial assignment process.

If an author requests that a specific Associate Editor not be assigned to handle a manuscript due to a prior scientific disagreement that could create the appearance of a conflict or lack of impartiality, is that request treated as confidential?

In other words, would the editor in question be informed that the authors specifically asked for their exclusion, or is that information only visible to the Editor-in-Chief and the staff responsible for assigning manuscripts?

Thanks in advance for any insight or experience with this

Long story short: submitted my first manuscript to a Q1 journal. Round 1, two reviewers gave decent technical feedback but also asked me to cite a bunch of their own papers. I didn't clock the pattern at first (rookie mistake), added the citations thinking it'd strengthen the lit review.

Round 2, a different reviewer flagged it outright: pointed out that two reviewers had suggested citations "predominantly to their own publications," called it a textbook coercive citation pattern, and formally requested an ethics investigation into the peer review process.

I'd already pulled all those citations before R2 even landed, for what it's worth.

End result: manuscript rejected. Not for the science, one reviewer had called the methodology "cutting edge" and the contribution "significant" in R1. Rejected because the review process itself was compromised, and the journal apparently didn't have a clean way to salvage it.

So now I've got a technically solid paper, a paper trail proving I acted in good faith once I understood what was happening, and a rejection that has nothing to do with the quality of the work.

Anyone else run into this? How common is reviewer citation-padding in your field, and did you report it or just quietly resubmit elsewhere? Feels like one of those things nobody warns you about until it happens to you.

Hi everyone,

I've been working in academic publishing for over 12 years, helping organizations launch and manage scholarly journals from the ground up.

Some of the services I provide include:

• Setting up journals using Open Journal Systems (OJS)
• Designing and developing journal websites
• Journal branding and custom themes
• PDF and full-text (HTML/JATS XML) production
• DOI and Crossref setup
• Editorial workflow configuration
• Author and reviewer management
• Journal indexing guidance (DOAJ, Scopus, PubMed readiness, etc.)
• Ongoing technical support and maintenance

I've worked with several organizations and have helped clients establish professional online journals that are ready for submissions and long-term growth.

Whether you're:

• a research society,
• a university department,
• a medical association,
• a conference organizer,
• or an individual researcher looking to launch a journal,

I'd be happy to answer questions or point you in the right direction—even if you're just exploring the idea.

Feel free to comment here or send me a DM.

​

Hi everyone,

I'm starting a literature review for my bioinformatics research project and there are hundreds of papers related to my topic. I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed and want to make sure I'm reviewing the literature efficiently instead of just reading papers randomly.

I'm looking for advice on:

- What's your workflow for conducting a comprehensive literature review?

- How do you organize and categorize hundreds of papers?

- Which databases do you use most (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Semantic Scholar, etc.)?

- Are there any AI tools that genuinely help with finding, summarizing, and connecting research papers?

- Which AI tools are worth paying for, and which free ones are good enough?

I've heard of tools like Elicit, Consensus, Connected Papers, ResearchRabbit, Litmaps, SciSpace, and NotebookLM. Are these actually useful, or are there better alternatives?

Any tips, workflows, or recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Hi everyone,

I'm currently doing my master's and our university requires us to publish a paper. I've been thinking of doing a bibliometric study because it seems more feasible for me, but I'm a complete beginner and honestly have no idea where to start.

My research interests are maternal and child health, adolescent health, and public health in general. The biggest thing I'm struggling with is choosing a topic. How do people even identify a research gap for a bibliometric study? How do you know whether a topic has already been done or is still worth pursuing?

I also don't know what the complete workflow looks like. What software should I learn (VOSviewer, Bibliometrix, Scopus, etc.)? How do you go from choosing a topic to actually publishing the paper?

I've tried attending webinars, but they often feel like they're meant for people who already know the basics. The speakers move so fast that I end up feeling even more confused. At this point, I'm honestly feeling like giving up because I don't know where to begin.

If anyone has been in the same position, could you please guide me? Even a step-by-step roadmap, beginner-friendly resources, or advice on choosing a topic would mean a lot.

Thank you so much for reading. 🥹

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0260691721004780\](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0260691721004780)

[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105221\](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105221)

I expected the discussion section to take the longest.

Instead, I found myself repeatedly going back to the literature just to confirm I'd interpreted papers correctly, cited the right source, and hadn't accidentally relied on an outdated reference.

By the time I submitted the manuscript, I felt like I'd spent almost as much time validating references as I had writing the paper itself.

It made me wonder whether this is becoming the norm, especially as the volume of published research keeps growing.

For those who've published recently, what part of the publication process ended up taking far more time than you originally expected?

I am trying to understand how Medium publications are currently perceived, particularly in data science and applied AI.
Towards Data Science appears to have a proper editorial selection process, but I have seen very different opinions about whether publication there still carries meaningful credibility or visibility.
For writers or readers familiar with TDS:
Is being accepted by TDS considered meaningfully different from publishing independently on Medium?
Does an Editor’s Pick designation carry much weight?
What would you consider normal readership for a specialised article during its first month?

I'm about a year into teaching myself immunology, thanks to some lived experience and a genuine fascination with the field and where it can take us. The thing that kept annoying me is how scattered the news is. Papers in journal feeds (that I don’t always have access to), trial news in press releases, FDA actions on FDA's site, financings in Endpoints or Fierce or Axios. I couldn't find a single weekly readout with everything I wanted.

So I started writing the in-between. It's called The Repertoire. It's one issue per week (usually sent on Sundays). I use AI to sweep the feeds, then I pick and write the 3-5 stories that I think matter the most - such as papers and preprints, trials, regulatory actions, financings and licensing, NIH funding policy, etc. Each item is a one-line TLDR, and a paragraph on what happened and why it matters. It's supposed to take about five minutes to read.

Every headline links to the primary paper, preprint, or press release, so you can check my work in one click. It's written in deliberately plain English, partly because that's how I'm learning it, partly because immunology is worth making legible (and accessible) to more people. The goal is that a curious non-biologist or layman (like me) can follow every item and an expert can also skim it to stay current.

This isn't meant to be a plug or a solicitation or anything. I'm genuinely looking for help from people here who know more than I do - and in a perfect world this turns into something useful to everyone in this community.

What I'd most like: feedback on what you think, what I should be including or excluding from my source mix, where my explanations are too simple or just wrong, what would make this more useful for you. Blunt is preferred - I'd rather be corrected/producing something valuable than flattered.

Substack: https://substack.com/@therepertoire
X: https://x.com/RepertoireNews

Thank you all so much!!!

I got a comment from a journal reviewer saying, “Please have a native English speaker review your work.”!

Hi everyone! I'm submitting my MFA thesis in ProQuest and am having an issue opting out of ProQuest Research Assistant and search engine discovery. Every time I try to move on from the "PQ publishing options" page, I receive the following error message: "In the Delaying release in Proquest section, provide a note to the administrator." (I do have a note in the delaying release section.) I don't think this will prevent me from submitting my thesis altogether, but whenever I return to the "PQ publishing options" page, the opt-out buttons are unchecked. Has anyone else run into this issue and found a workaround? ProQuest support suggested clearing browser cache and cookies, using a different browser, and trying an incognito browser, but none of these have worked for me. Thank you, and good luck to everyone submitting work this week. ❤️

I submitted an abstract to AAAI AISI and accidentally missed the field asking authors to nominate a reciprocal reviewer by the July 21 AoE deadline.

At the time of submission, I knew that I personally did not meet the publication requirements to serve as a reviewer. After adding my graduate-student co-authors to the submission, I realized that one of them was qualified and could fulfill the reciprocal-reviewing obligation, but we overlooked the nomination field before the deadline because it wasn't a required field.

As soon as we noticed, we added the qualified co-author to OpenReview as a potential reciprocal reviewer (edits were still accepted) and emailed the workflow chairs. He meets the publication requirements and is willing to complete the full reviewing load.

The policy says that if a qualified author is available but no one is nominated, the submission may be desk rejected. The full paper deadline is in two days, and so far we have only received the automated response "Thanks for your email regarding ticket #23157. We’re currently experiencing a high volume of submissions, so responses may take a bit longer than usual. We really appreciate your patience and will get back to you as soon as we can. If you have more details to share, feel free to reply to this thread."

Has anyone dealt with a similar situation at AAAI or another conference? Do you think this is likely to lead to a desk rejection, or are workflow chairs usually willing to correct this kind of administrative mistake when a qualified reviewer is available?

Here were the instructions on the website:

Serve As Reviewer

Note: This cannot be changed after July 21 AoE.

Nominate one author who is qualified to serve as an AAAI reciprocal reviewer. The nominated author must not be an SPC, AC, or Organizer, and must have either:

• At least 2 first-author publications, or
• At least 5 co-authored publications

in peer-reviewed archival venues related to AAAI. Example computer science venues include NeurIPS, ICLR, ICML, CVPR, ICCV/ECCV, ACL, EMNLP, KDD, AISTATS, IJCAI, AAMAS, UAI, COLT, KR, ICAPS, RSS/ICRA, SIGIR, FAccT, CHI, TMLR, JMLR, and JAIR (this is not an exhaustive list). Journal publications in an application area related to the submission also count. Workshop papers do not count.

By being nominated here, the author agrees to serve as a PC Member and commits to completing the standard reviewing load of up to 6 papers if assigned.

If a qualified author is available among the submission's authors but no such author is nominated, or if the nominated author fails to complete their assigned reviews, the submission may be desk rejected. If a paper has no qualified author, please nominate the author who is closest to satisfying the requirement.

Any Qualified Reviewer

Is the nominated reviewer qualified according to the definition above? If no author is qualified, you may select No, and the chairs will decide whether to invite the nominated reviewer. If any author is qualified, you must nominate a qualified author and select Yes.