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.
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.
Cell Reports at a glance
Key metrics to place the journal before deciding whether it fits your manuscript and career goals.
What makes this journal worth targeting
- IF 6.9 puts Cell Reports in a visible tier — citations from papers here carry real weight.
- Scope specificity matters more than impact factor for most manuscript decisions.
- Acceptance rate of ~~15-20% means fit determines most outcomes.
When to look elsewhere
- When your paper sits at the edge of the journal's stated scope — borderline fit rarely improves after submission.
- If timeline matters: Cell Reports takes ~5 day. A faster-turnaround journal may suit a grant or job deadline better.
- If OA is required: gold OA costs $5,790 USD. Check institutional agreements before submitting.
Quick answer: 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.
Cell Reports AI Policy at a Glance
- AI authorship: Prohibited. AI tools cannot be listed as authors and cannot take accountability for the work.
- AI disclosure: Required. Disclose use of AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) in the Methods or Acknowledgments section.
- AI-generated images: Prohibited. AI-created figures, illustrations, or visualizations are not permitted in the manuscript.
- Copy editing: All AI use, including copy editing, must be disclosed.
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:
- AI can't be an author. Generative AI tools don't meet authorship criteria.
- AI use must be disclosed in STAR Methods. Specifically in the Method Details subsection.
- AI-generated images are prohibited. No generative AI figures, graphical abstracts, or illustrations.
- Authors are fully accountable. Every co-author takes responsibility for all content.
- 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.
Readiness check
Run the scan while the topic is in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
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 | ~$2,477 | $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 Cell Reports submission readiness check can help verify your Cell Reports submission meets Cell Press requirements before submission.
What should you do about Cell Reports''s AI policy?
Comply proactively if:
- You used any AI tool (ChatGPT, Grammarly, Copilot) during manuscript preparation
- The journal requires AI use disclosure in the methods or acknowledgments
- Your institution has its own AI use policy that may be stricter
Less concerned if:
- You used AI only for grammar/spell checking (most journals exempt this)
- The journal does not have a formal AI policy yet
- Your use was limited to literature search or reference management
Frequently asked questions
Yes, with mandatory disclosure in STAR Methods. Cell Reports follows the Cell Press AI policy: AI tools can be used for language editing and preparation, but all use must be disclosed under Method Details. AI can't be listed as an author.
No. Cell Reports follows the identical Cell Press policy as Cell, Cancer Cell, Molecular Cell, Immunity, Neuron, and all other Cell Press titles. The rules are set at the publisher level.
Cell Reports publishes approximately 2,000-2,500 articles per year, more than Cell (~600) or any other Cell Press primary research journal. The same policy applies, but the higher volume means enforcement relies more on author self-reporting and peer review flagging. Honest disclosure is essential.
Yes. Cell Reports Medicine and Cell Reports Physical Science are separate journals within Cell Press, and they follow the same Cell Press AI policy. The rules are identical across all Cell Press titles regardless of disciplinary focus.
Cell Press follows COPE guidelines. During review, disclosure must be added. After publication, consequences range from correction to retraction. Cell Reports' open-access status means corrections and retractions are publicly visible to all readers.
Sources
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.
Where to go next
Start here
Same journal, next question
- Cell Reports Submission Guide
- How to Avoid Desk Rejection at Cell Reports
- eLife vs Cell Reports
- Cell Reports APC and Open Access: Current Price, GPOA Discounts, and What Authors Should Budget
- Cell Reports Submission Process: A Real Author Guide for 2026
- Rejected from Cell Reports? The 7 Best Journals to Submit Next
Supporting reads
Conversion step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.