How to Respond to Reviewer Comments About AI Use (With Examples)

A reviewer asks whether AI helped prepare your manuscript, or the journal asks about AI use before the review can proceed. Perhaps you used a tool to refine the language, omitted a required disclosure, or did not use generative AI. Each situation calls for a different explanation, and a vague or defensive reply can delay the decision on your paper.

The most effective way to respond to reviewer comments about AI use is to begin by identifying what the reviewer needs to know, including which tasks involved AI, whether the use complied with the journal policy, or whether a passage contains a substantive problem. Then, connect your answer to the checks you completed and the changes in the revised manuscript.

This guide provides response-to-reviewer examples for questions about AI use, missing disclosures, unreliable citations, and analysis code. This guide also explains how to respond if your manuscript has been flagged as written using AI or you are falsely accused of using AI in general. In every case, the aim is to provide the editor with an accurate account of your process and a clear record of your revisions.

What exactly is the reviewer questioning?

Before drafting your response, separate the reviewer’s observation from the conclusion they draw from it. “This paragraph is repetitive” identifies a writing issue. “The authors used AI” makes a claim about how the manuscript was prepared. A request for an AI declaration may simply ask you to document your process.

Reviewer concern	What your response should establish
“The text appears AI-generated.”	What tools were used, for which tasks, and what preparation records are available.
“The writing is generic or repetitive.”	How you revised the passage and clarified its connection to your study.
“The AI declaration is missing or incomplete.”	Whether disclosure was required and what information you added.
“A citation or claim is unreliable.”	What the original source supports, what you corrected, and how the correction affects the argument.

If a comment combines several of these concerns, answer each part separately. For general advice on how to respond to reviewer comments and format your letter, see Wordvice’s guide to responding to reviewer comments.

When a journal asks about AI use, check your records and its policy first

Review the manuscript preparation process with all coauthors. Identify any tools used to draft, translate, revise, or summarize the text and tools involved in coding or analysis. Where relevant, also ask about language-editing services and software features (e.g., AI-assisted suggestions in word processors). Writing the first draft yourself does not establish how other contributors later revised the draft.

Be sure to describe tasks precisely. A statement about the manuscript text does not cover AI used in coding or analysis. If the version of the tool or a past setting was not recorded, state that rather than guess. Then, consult the author guidelines to confirm what the journal requires authors to report.

Collect the records you already have, including dated drafts, tracked changes, research notes, reference-library entries, or correspondence about revisions. From these records, select the material that explains the disputed passage. These records provide context but do not automatically prove that no AI was used anywhere in the project. Avoid sending an entire private archive when a focused explanation will suffice.

Response-to-reviewer examples for questions about AI use

The examples below are illustrative wording rather than actual reviewer correspondence or publisher-approved templates. Replace each bracketed placeholder with accurate details. Include statements about completed checks or revisions only after the work is completed.

If your review of the process identifies AI use, choose wording that reflects that finding. Check the journal’s disclosure requirements and its permitted uses. For example, Taylor & Francis’s guidance distinguishes permitted language refinement from generating a first draft of a manuscript or section, which the publisher does not allow. Disclosure alone does not make every use permissible.

Explain limited AI use or correct missing AI disclosure

In an AI disclosure, a useful reviewer response identifies the tool, task, affected material, and human review. Describing the use as “grammar only” is inaccurate if the tool translated passages or reorganized the argument.

We used [tool and recorded version] to [specific task] in [sections]. We reviewed the resulting changes against [original text or research records], checking [specific features checked]. The tool’s role was limited to [accurate scope]. We expanded the declaration at [page and lines] to describe this use and the authors’ review.

If required information was omitted, acknowledge the omission:

Our original submission omitted the required disclosure of [specific use]. We apologize for this omission. We added the tool, purpose, affected sections, and review process to [required location] and corrected [applicable submission field]. The revised statement reads: “[Insert the disclosure.]”

Check every required location. The ICMJE recommends describing AI use in the cover letter and, where applicable, the appropriate section of the submitted work. Follow your journal’s requirements rather than assuming that a statement in the response letter is sufficient. For wording you can adapt to your manuscript, see our AI disclosure statement examples.

Address a citation or claim the reviewer could not verify

Verify the original source and the statement it is intended to support. Locating a paper with a similar title is insufficient because AI tools can produce plausible but nonexistent or mismatched references. If asked, explain any AI involvement, then describe the correction and its implications.

We checked [reference] against the original publication and confirmed that it does not support [claim] as written. [Accurate explanation of AI involvement, if applicable.] We removed the unsupported statement and revised [affected passage] at [page and lines]. Our examination of the affected argument found [effect on the interpretation or conclusions]. We also checked [specific related claims or references] and made [additional corrections].

Do not claim that every reference was checked if you reviewed only one. Similarly, do not state that “the conclusions are unchanged” without an assessment of the error’s effects.

Explain AI assistance with code or analysis

Describe the research task separately from language editing. Include the validation you performed and indicate the corresponding methodological information.

[Tool] was used to suggest code for [task]. [Author/role] reviewed and modified the code, then checked its output using [validation procedure]. We added the tool’s role and validation details to the Methods section at [page and lines]. [Code or supporting material] is available at [appropriate location]. The checks identified [findings], and we [resulting action, if any].

What to do if you are falsely accused of using AI

Learning that your manuscript is accused of being written by AI can be frustrating, especially when you’ve written it yourself. A calm, factual reply is more persuasive than a defensive one. If you have confirmed that generative AI was not used for the tasks in question, state that fact clearly. Address any specific writing or evidence concerns separately from the claim about your process.

1. The reviewer says the manuscript sounds AI-generated

Provide a direct account of the writing process and offer relevant records via the editor. If the reviewer does not identify specific passages, ask for clarification so that you can respond to concrete concerns.

After checking the manuscript preparation process with all coauthors, we confirm that generative AI was not used to draft, translate, or revise the manuscript text. The initial draft was prepared by [author/role] and revised through [process]. We retained [available drafts or revision records] and can provide relevant material through the journal’s preferred channel.

Could the editor identify the passages underlying this concern? Identifying these passages would help us address any specific problems with the wording, supporting evidence, or interpretation.

Remove any task from this statement that does not accurately describe your process. If the journal uses an anonymized (double-blind) review, follow its procedure for sharing records that identify the authors.

2. A reviewer cites an AI detector score

Keep the initial response focused on your manuscript rather than on the detector score. A score is a probabilistic estimate rather than evidence of how a text was written, and debating the detector accuracy at the outset can divert attention from the substance of your work. Briefly clarify your actual use or non-use of AI, then explain how you addressed any identified writing concerns. You can acknowledge that some wording requires further clarification without agreeing that the text was AI-generated.

If you have reviewed and revised the passages identified by the reviewer, you could state the following:

Thank you for raising this concern. We confirm that generative AI was not used to [specific tasks performed]. We carefully reviewed the identified passages and revised [specific wording or section] to improve [clarity, precision, or the connection to the study’s findings]. The changes appear at [page and lines]. We hope these revisions clarify our intended meaning.

Describe the changes you actually made (e.g., removing a repeated sentence, clarifying a technical term, or narrowing a claim to match the results.) Avoid promising to reduce a detector score or suggesting that clearer wording establishes how the text was originally written.

If the reviewer provides a score but does not identify any passages, first review the manuscript for concrete writing problems. Then, you can ask for direction without requesting that the reviewer defend the score:

Thank you for bringing this concern to our attention. We confirm that generative AI was not used to [defined tasks]. We reviewed the manuscript for clarity and precision and [describe any revisions made]. If there are particular passages that remain unclear, we would appreciate your guidance so that we can address them directly.

If the editor requests evidence about manuscript preparation, provide an accurate account and your relevant records. A technical discussion of detector limitations need not lead the initial response. For background, see our article on AI detectors in academic writing.

3. The wording needs revision even though you did not use AI

A factual denial and substantive revision can appear in the same response. Specify the problem you fixed instead of describing the revision as making the text sound “less AI-generated.”

Generative AI was not used to prepare this passage. However, we agree that the original paragraph was repetitive and did not clearly connect the finding to our research question. We removed the repeated summary and revised the interpretation to distinguish the observed association from a causal explanation.

The revised passage at [page and lines] now reads: “[Insert the exact revised text.]” This change clarifies the scope of the finding and avoids the broader claim in the original version.

4. You have limited draft history

Explain what is available and what is missing. Do not recreate earlier drafts and present them as historical records. Describe a missing version history honestly rather than offering an unsupported assurance.

We confirm that [statement about AI use]. We did not retain a complete version history for [section or period], so we cannot provide a continuous record of its drafting. We can provide [existing notes, earlier submission files, or other relevant material] and explain how the passage was developed from [research records or analysis]. Please let us know which part of the preparation process requires further clarification.

When should you ask the editor for guidance?

Contact the editor when the reviewer’s request is unclear, the journal’s policy appears to conflict with your actual use, or an error may affect the study’s conclusions. Explain the facts and the unresolved question. Simply rewriting a passage does not resolve a concern about a prohibited preparation method.

During the preparation of our response, we confirmed that [specific use] occurred in [scope]. We understand that the journal’s policy states [policy provision]. We completed [checks], but would appreciate guidance on how the journal wishes us to proceed regarding [specific unresolved issue].

If further verification is likely to take longer than the revision deadline, request an extension, explaining the work required and proposing a realistic completion date.

Final check: Compare the response letter with the revised manuscript

Read your response letter alongside the final files. Every “we revised,” “we checked,” and “we added” should match the completed work. Verify the quoted text, page and line numbers, disclosure fields, and supplementary materials. Ask your coauthors to confirm the account of AI use before resubmission.

A clear response presents the editor with concrete information to assess: an accurate description of your process, the available records, and the implemented changes. Once those facts are settled, Wordvice’s academic paper editing service can help refine the language, tone, and clarity of your manuscript and response letter before you resubmit.

Frequently asked questions about responding to reviewer comments on AI use

Do I need to disclose AI use for grammar or language editing?

Policies vary. Some journals and publishers do not require disclosure of basic grammar and spelling tools, whereas others ask authors to report any use of generative AI. Check your journal’s author guidelines, and if you are unsure, disclose the use and describe its limited scope.

Can an AI detector score prove that I used AI?

No. Detector scores are probabilistic estimates and can flag human writing, including text by non-native English speakers and text that follows formulaic academic conventions. A factual account of your process and specific revisions to unclear passages provide a stronger basis for the editor’s decision than a debate about the score.

Should AI disclosures appear in the response letter or the manuscript?

Usually, they need to appear in both. The response letter explains your changes to the reviewer, but most journals also expect the disclosure in the manuscript itself (often in the Methods, Acknowledgments, or a dedicated declaration section) and in any required submission fields.