Publishing Strategy8 min readUpdated Mar 25, 2026

Cell Reports' AI Policy: Cell Press Rules for the Broad-Scope OA Journal

Cell Reports follows the Cell Press AI policy: disclosure goes in STAR Methods, AI cannot be an author, and the same rules apply across Cell Reports Medicine and all Cell Press titles.

Senior Researcher, Oncology & Cell Biology

Author context

Specializes in manuscript preparation and peer review strategy for oncology and cell biology, with deep experience evaluating submissions to Nature Medicine, JCO, Cancer Cell, and Cell-family journals.

Next step

Choose the next useful decision step first.

Use the guide or checklist that matches this page's intent before you ask for a manuscript-level diagnostic.

Open Journal Fit ChecklistAnthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.Run Free Readiness Scan

Cell Reports is Cell Press's workhorse. Where Cell publishes roughly 600 research articles per year and selectivity is extreme, Cell Reports handles 2,000-2,500 articles across all areas of life sciences. It's fully open access, it has a broader acceptance rate, and it processes a higher volume of manuscripts than any other Cell Press primary research journal. The AI policy is identical to Cell's, but the scale at which it operates creates different practical dynamics that authors should understand.

The Cell Press AI policy at Cell Reports

Cell Reports inherits its AI policy from Cell Press without modification. The rules are the same as Cell, Cancer Cell, Molecular Cell, Immunity, and Neuron:

  1. AI can't be an author. Generative AI tools don't meet authorship criteria.
  2. AI use must be disclosed in STAR Methods. Specifically in the Method Details subsection.
  3. AI-generated images are prohibited. No generative AI figures, graphical abstracts, or illustrations.
  4. Authors are fully accountable. Every co-author takes responsibility for all content.
  5. All preparation phases count. AI use at any stage of writing requires disclosure.

Cell Press is part of Elsevier, so the policy also aligns with Elsevier's broader AI guidelines. But Cell Press's STAR Methods requirement adds formatting specificity beyond what general Elsevier journals mandate.

Cell Reports vs. Cell: same rules, different context

Understanding where Cell Reports sits in the Cell Press hierarchy clarifies why the same AI policy plays out differently:

Aspect
Cell
Cell Reports
AI policy
Cell Press standard
Cell Press standard
Articles/year
~600
~2,000-2,500
Acceptance rate
~8%
~25-30%
Access model
Subscription + OA option
Fully open access
APC
N/A (subscription) or ~$9,900 (OA)
~$4,530
Editorial scrutiny per paper
Very high
High but less per-paper time
Peer review depth
3+ reviewers typical
2-3 reviewers typical
Post-publication visibility
High (but paywalled for some)
Very high (fully OA)

The practical implication: Cell Reports editors handle more papers with relatively fewer editorial hours per manuscript than Cell's editors. AI disclosure compliance depends more heavily on author self-reporting and reviewer attention at Cell Reports than at Cell itself.

This doesn't mean Cell Reports doesn't care about AI policy. It means that honest, thorough self-disclosure is even more important here because the editorial team can't apply the same per-manuscript scrutiny that a lower-volume journal can.

The Cell Reports family

Cell Press publishes several journals under the "Cell Reports" brand, each following the same AI policy:

Journal
Focus
Articles/year
Cell Reports
Broad life sciences
2,000-2,500
Cell Reports Medicine
Clinical/translational medicine
~400
Cell Reports Physical Science
Chemistry, physics, materials, energy
~400
Cell Reports Methods
Methods in life sciences
~200
Cell Reports Sustainability
Environmental sustainability
~100

All five journals follow the Cell Press AI policy identically. If you've read the rules for one, you've read them for all.

Cell Reports Medicine deserves special attention. It publishes clinical and translational research, which means the same heightened AI considerations that apply at Nature Medicine or JAMA apply here: don't use AI for clinical data interpretation, don't process patient data through cloud AI tools, and be explicit about what AI did and didn't touch.

Writing the STAR Methods disclosure

For a cell biology paper:

"During preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT (GPT-4, OpenAI) to improve the clarity of the Discussion section. All AI-suggested text edits were reviewed by the corresponding author (A.B.). The authors take full responsibility for the published content."

For a genomics/bioinformatics paper:

"The RNA-seq analysis pipeline was built using DESeq2, edgeR, and custom R scripts (see STAR Methods: RNA-seq Analysis). GitHub Copilot (Microsoft) was used to assist with writing the custom gene ontology enrichment scripts. All code was validated against published datasets. ChatGPT (GPT-4, OpenAI) was used to improve the language of the Results section. The authors take full responsibility for the content."

For a neuroscience paper submitted to Cell Reports:

"Calcium imaging data was processed using Suite2p (Pachitariu et al., 2017) as described in STAR Methods: Imaging Analysis. During manuscript preparation, Claude (Claude 3.5, Anthropic) was used to edit the Introduction and Methods sections for language clarity. All AI-generated suggestions were reviewed by the senior author (C.D.). The authors take full responsibility for the published content."

For a Cell Reports Medicine paper:

"No patient data was processed through cloud-based AI tools. During manuscript preparation, ChatGPT (GPT-4, OpenAI) was used to improve the readability of the Discussion. No AI tools were used for clinical data interpretation or outcome reporting. All AI-suggested text was reviewed by the clinical investigators (E.F. and G.H.). The authors take full responsibility for the content."

What requires disclosure at Cell Reports

Use case
Disclosure required?
Notes
Grammar/spell check
No
Standard tools exempt
ChatGPT for language editing
Yes
STAR Methods, Method Details
AI for bioinformatics code
Yes
Specify which pipeline steps
Research software (DESeq2, Seurat, etc.)
No (research tool)
Standard STAR Methods
AI-generated diagrams
Prohibited
BioRender, Illustrator are fine
AI for figure legends
Yes
Part of the manuscript
AI for graphical abstract
Prohibited if generative
Standard design tools only
AI for STAR Methods Key Resources Table
Minor, formatting only
Content must be author-generated
Translation of manuscript
Yes
Name tool and languages
AI for reviewer response drafting
Not strictly required
Update disclosure if manuscript was substantially revised

Consequences of non-disclosure

Cell Press enforcement follows the standard COPE-guided process:

During review:

  • Request to add disclosure to STAR Methods
  • Deliberate concealment can lead to rejection
  • If AI involvement in analysis code is suspected, additional reviewer scrutiny may be requested

After publication:

  • Correction for minor language editing non-disclosure
  • Expression of concern if AI affected data analysis or interpretation
  • Retraction for fabricated data or false claims

The open access factor: Cell Reports is fully OA, meaning every paper, and every correction or retraction, is freely visible worldwide. Unlike a subscription journal where corrections might only be noticed by active subscribers, a Cell Reports correction shows up for anyone searching for the paper on Google Scholar, PubMed, or the journal's website. The reputational cost of a post-publication issue is amplified by universal access.

Volume and pattern detection: Because Cell Reports processes so many manuscripts, the editorial team accumulates pattern-recognition experience with AI disclosure issues. Editors who've seen hundreds of disclosure statements can spot missing or inadequate disclosures more efficiently than editors at low-volume journals. Don't assume the volume means lower scrutiny, it means more experienced scrutiny.

Comparison with other broad-scope life science journals

Feature
Cell Reports
Nature Communications
PLOS ONE
eLife
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Cell Press (Elsevier)
Springer Nature
PLOS
eLife Sciences
Springer Nature
Articles/year
2,000-2,500
6,000+
15,000+
1,500+
20,000+
AI authorship
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Disclosure location
STAR Methods
Methods
Methods
Methods
Methods
AI image ban
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Access model
Gold OA
Gold OA
Gold OA
Diamond OA
Gold OA
APC
~$4,530
~$5,790
~$1,805
$0
~$2,190

Cell Reports sits between the elite Cell Press journals (Cell, Cancer Cell) and the mega-journals (PLOS ONE, Scientific Reports) in terms of selectivity and per-paper editorial attention. Its AI enforcement reflects this middle position: more systematic than a mega-journal, less intensive per-paper than Cell itself.

How Elsevier's policy layers with Cell Press's

Aspect
Elsevier (general)
Cell Press / Cell Reports
Policy text
Broad guidelines
More prescriptive
Disclosure location
Flexible
STAR Methods required
Example language
General
Specific examples in guidelines
Editorial screening
Varies by journal
Active at Cell Press

If you're submitting to a non-Cell-Press Elsevier journal (like a journal in the Lancet family or a standard Elsevier title), the disclosure placement is more flexible. At Cell Reports, it's specifically STAR Methods → Method Details. This formatting requirement is non-negotiable.

Practical advice for Cell Reports submissions

For standard research articles:

  • Use the STAR Methods AI disclosure as your primary location
  • Include tool name, version, and specific use case
  • If you used AI during revisions, update the STAR Methods disclosure in your revised manuscript

For papers with computational analysis:

  • Deposit all code in a public repository
  • Clearly separate research software from AI writing tools in STAR Methods
  • AI-generated analysis code should be validated against known results

For Cell Reports Medicine submissions:

  • Don't process patient data through cloud AI
  • Keep AI away from clinical interpretation
  • Be explicit about what AI didn't do, especially for clinical content

For non-native English speakers:

  • AI-assisted language editing is perfectly acceptable at Cell Reports
  • Disclose it in STAR Methods with the tool name, version, and what you asked it to do
  • This is a legitimate use case that Cell Press has publicly supported

Before submission checklist:

  • [ ] AI disclosure in STAR Methods → Method Details
  • [ ] Tool names, versions, and specific use cases listed
  • [ ] Research tools in standard STAR Methods (not AI disclosure)
  • [ ] No generative AI images or graphical abstract
  • [ ] Analysis code validated and deposited
  • [ ] All co-authors reviewed the disclosure
  • [ ] Graphical abstract made with BioRender, Illustrator, or similar

A free manuscript assessment can help verify your Cell Reports submission meets Cell Press requirements before submission.

References

Sources

  1. Cell Press AI policy
  2. Cell Reports author guidelines
  3. Cell Reports Medicine author guidelines
  4. Elsevier AI policy for authors
  5. STAR Methods guidelines
  6. COPE position statement on AI

Reference library

Use the core publishing datasets alongside this guide

This article answers one part of the publishing decision. The reference library covers the recurring questions that usually come next: how selective journals are, how long review takes, and what the submission requirements look like across journals.

Open the reference library

Before you upload

Choose the next useful decision step first.

Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.

Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.

Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.

Internal navigation

Where to go next

Open Journal Fit Checklist