Physical Review D AI Policy: ChatGPT and Generative AI Disclosure Rules for Physical Review D Authors
Physical Review D (APS) requires AI disclosure under APS rules. AI cannot be an author. This guide covers where to disclose, what to disclose, and the consequences of non-compliance for Physical Review D submissions.
Readiness scan
AI policy covered? See what Physical Review D reviewers are likely to push back on.
The AI policy governs disclosure, not how the science is judged. Run the Free Readiness Scan with Physical Review D as your target to see desk-rejection risk, likely reviewer concerns, and journal fit.
Quick answer: The Physical Review D AI policy follows APS's rules calibrated to particle physics, cosmology, or gravitation advance with full theoretical or observational characterization submissions.
AI tools can be used for manuscript preparation but substantive AI use must be disclosed in the paper; authors are not required to disclose AI used to polish, condense, or otherwise lightly edit the text, and editors may request more documentation if concerns emerge. AI cannot be listed as an author of any Physical Review D paper. APS allows AI for data visualizations, but authors must verify the accuracy of AI-generated figures, make sure they do not violate third-party rights, and explain any AI use for figure generation in the figure caption.
Physical Review D (APS) editors can treat undisclosed substantive AI use as a publication-ethics problem, with the response depending on the publisher policy, the timing, and whether the scientific record is affected.
Run the Physical Review D submission readiness check which includes an automated AI-disclosure audit, or work through this guide manually. Need broader context? See the Physical Review D journal overview.
The Manusights Physical Review D readiness scan. This guide tells you what Physical Review D (APS)'s AI policy asks authors to disclose. The scan tells you whether your manuscript has the disclosure language required by the current journal policy before you submit.
We have reviewed manuscripts targeting Physical Review D (APS) and peer venues; the named patterns below are patterns we check against the publisher's public AI policy and common editorial-screening risks. 60-day money-back guarantee. Your manuscript is not used for model training, and access is limited to the review workflow.
Editorial detail (for desk-screen calibration).
Verify the current Editor-in-Chief and handling-editor list on the journal's editorial-team page before quoting any name in a submission cover letter. Submission portal: Authors submission portal. Manuscript constraints: abstracts are one paragraph of under 500 words (about 5% of the article); Research Articles have no length limit, Letters are limited to 4,500 words, and Comments and Replies to 3,500 words.
We reviewed APS's AI policy framework against current Physical Review D author guidelines (accessed 2026-10-09); evidence basis is based on publicly available APS policy documentation, with the strengths and weaknesses of the policy framework noted alongside our internal anonymized submission corpus. The applicable word limit at Physical Review D is shown below: abstracts are one paragraph of under 500 words (about 5% of the article); Research Articles have no length limit, Letters are limited to 4,500 words, and Comments and Replies to 3,500 words.
Research Articles at this journal have no word limit (see the APS length guide for how Letters and Comments are counted). The named editorial-culture quirk: PRD editors expect rigorous derivation and explicit comparison to existing high-energy-physics literature.
What does Physical Review D (APS)'s AI policy require?
The same APS framework covers Letters, so if the result might go out as a short paper instead, read the Physical Review Letters AI policy guide alongside this one.
Physical Review D authors should check four policy areas under APS's current AI framework before submission:
Rule 1: Disclose substantive AI use
Authors must keep a record of any AI use and disclose any substantive uses in the submitted paper. APS asks authors to state the AI tool name and version, how the AI assisted, and how the authors directed and verified the AI output. AI used in conducting the research goes where other methods are described, AI used for figure generation is explained in the figure caption, and all other uses worth disclosing go in the Acknowledgment statement. Examples that can count as substantive use at Physical Review D:
- For Physical Review D-targeted manuscripts addressing particle physics, cosmology, or gravitation advance with full theoretical or observational characterization: using ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or similar to draft or revise scientific claims, conclusions, or explanations (APS does not require disclosure of AI used only to polish, condense, or lightly edit text)
- For Physical Review D submissions: using AI to generate boilerplate text for limitations, ethics statements, or Physical Review D-specific response-to-reviewers letters that cite APS's framework
- For Physical Review D (APS) submissions: using AI to translate manuscript text into English from another language; the APS FAQ allows this under the tool's terms but makes the author responsible for checking the output for factual and scientific errors, including inadvertent plagiarism
- For Physical Review D literature reviews: using AI for literature synthesis beyond routine organization, which the APS FAQ lists as substantive use
- For Physical Review D analytical pipelines: AI-assisted code generation or debugging that materially affects results is substantive use under the APS FAQ and is described where other methods are listed
Examples that do NOT require AI disclosure:
- At Physical Review D, using grammar/spell checkers (Word) for line-level edits, when used without generative AI features for new manuscript content
- For Physical Review D submissions, using reference managers (Zotero, EndNote) for citation formatting against APS's style guide
- For Physical Review D (APS) statistical analysis, using established statistical software (R, Stata, SPSS) where the algorithm is the established tool documented in Physical Review D's methodological norm, not a generative AI
Rule 2: AI cannot be an author
No AI tool can be listed as an author of a Physical Review D paper, particularly for particle physics, cosmology, or gravitation advance with full theoretical or observational characterization-class submissions. Under APS's policy, an AI program cannot be held accountable and cannot be listed as an author, and authors are fully responsible for accuracy and must review and refine all AI-generated content. APS's editorial policies add that AI writing tools can be mentioned in the Acknowledgments. This rule is consistent across all APS-published journals.
Rule 3: AI-generated figures need verification and a caption note
APS allows AI to be used for data visualizations, but authors are responsible for verifying the accuracy of all AI-generated figures or graphics and must ensure the images do not violate third-party copyrights, licensing agreements, or attribution requirements. Images and non-textual media should be factual, scientifically correct, and accurately represent the content of the paper. Any AI use for figure generation should be mentioned and explained in the figure caption.
Rule 4: Disclose AI use in peer review participation
APS's AI policy also covers peer review. Reviewers may use AI to organize their thoughts, improve clarity or tone, translate the review, or query AI as a learning tool, but they must disclose AI use beyond polishing in a note to the editor, and uploading manuscripts or reports to unrestricted AI tools is not permitted. Authors should not assume that reviewer-side AI rules are identical at other publishers.
How does Physical Review D (APS)'s AI policy compare to peer journals?
Rule | Physical Review D stance | APS default | Policy basis |
|---|---|---|---|
AI authorship | Prohibited | Prohibited | Authorship/accountability |
Disclosure location | Methods (research use), figure caption (figures), Acknowledgment (other uses) | Same | Authorship/accountability |
AI-generated figures | Allowed with verification; explain in caption | Same | Image-integrity guidance |
Reviewer AI use | Disclosure required beyond polishing | Disclosure required beyond polishing | Peer-review confidentiality guidance |
Enforcement intensity | Editors may request more documentation if concerns emerge | Same | Submission-stage policy check |
Source: APS Appropriate Use of AI Tools (accessed 2026-10-09) plus Physical Review D author guidelines.
What does AI disclosure look like in a Physical Review D Methods section?
Acceptable disclosure language for Physical Review D submissions:
"For our particle physics, cosmology, or gravitation advance with full theoretical or observational characterization-focused manuscript at Physical Review D, we used ChatGPT-4o (OpenAI, version dated October 2024) to polish English-language phrasing in the Introduction and Discussion sections. We did not use generative AI for data analysis, figure generation, or substantive manuscript content. All authors reviewed and edited the AI-assisted text and take responsibility for the final manuscript."
Or, for AI-assisted code:
"For this Physical Review D submission addressing particle physics, cosmology, or gravitation advance with full theoretical or observational characterization, initial Python code for the Bayesian regression analysis was drafted with Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Anthropic, version dated December 2024). All code was reviewed, modified, and validated by the authors before use; the final version is available at [repository URL]. Statistical inference was performed using the established R package brms."
What falls short of Physical Review D's disclosure guidance:
- For Physical Review D addressing particle physics, cosmology, or gravitation advance with full theoretical or observational characterization: "AI tools were used in manuscript preparation." Too vague, because APS asks authors to state the AI tool name and version, how the AI assisted, and how the authors directed and verified the output
- "We acknowledge AI assistance in the Acknowledgments." (The Acknowledgment statement is the right place for uses other than research and figure generation, but the statement still needs the tool name and version, how it assisted, and how the authors directed and verified the output.)
- "ChatGPT helped write this paper." (Insufficient detail on use case)
- No disclosure when AI was used substantively (APS requires disclosure of substantive uses)
Desk-screen risks we see before submission
For Physical Review D-targeted manuscripts, the patterns below are common AI-policy risk areas to check against the publisher's current guidance before submission.
AI disclosure missing despite obvious AI-assisted phrasing. Substantive AI-assisted drafting without a required disclosure can trigger an editorial query. Check whether your manuscript reads as AI-assisted
AI disclosure placed in the wrong manuscript location. APS places AI disclosure by type of use: where other methods are described for AI used in research, in the figure caption for figure generation, and in the Acknowledgment statement for all other uses worth disclosing. A misplaced disclosure can create an avoidable submission query. Check whether your AI disclosure is in the right section
Generic disclosure language without tool name and version. APS asks authors to state the AI tool name and version, how the AI assisted, and how the authors directed and verified the output. "AI tools were used" without specifics falls short of that guidance. Check whether your AI disclosure has the required specificity
What is the Physical Review D AI-policy compliance timeline?
Stage | Duration | What happens |
|---|---|---|
Author drafts AI disclosure | 30-60 minutes | Identify all AI use, gather tool versions, write Methods paragraph |
Co-author review of disclosure | 1-2 days | All authors confirm the disclosure is complete and accurate |
Editorial desk-screen check | 1-2 weeks | Physical Review D's editorial team checks the disclosure against the manuscript when policy review is triggered |
Editorial query (if disclosure incomplete) | 5-10 days | Editor requests revision before sending to peer review |
Reviewer AI-disclosure check | During peer review | Reviewers verify the disclosure matches the manuscript style |
Source: Manusights internal review of Physical Review D-targeted submissions, 2025 cohort.
Submit If
- For Physical Review D (APS) submissions on particle physics, cosmology, or gravitation advance with full theoretical or observational characterization: the manuscript documents substantive generative-AI use with the AI tool name and version, how it assisted, how the authors directed and verified the output, and the disclosure location APS specifies
- For Physical Review D: no AI tool is listed as an author; all listed authors meet authorship criteria and take responsibility for the final manuscript
- For Physical Review D (APS): figures and schematics representing original research data come from the actual research, and any AI used for figure generation is verified for accuracy and explained in the figure caption
- For Physical Review D submissions: the disclosure makes clear that human authors reviewed the AI-assisted material and take responsibility for the final manuscript
Readiness check
Run the scan while the topic is in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Think Twice If
- The manuscript contains substantive AI-assisted drafting but no disclosure; this can trigger an editorial query if the journal requires disclosure for that use case.
- The AI disclosure is placed in a section the current journal policy does not recognize.
- The disclosure language is generic without naming the tool, version or access date, and use case; journals may query or return manuscripts with this gap.
- Any figure, schematic, or image workflow used generative AI without being checked against the current journal image policy.
Manusights submission-corpus signal for Physical Review D (APS).
Of the manuscripts our team screened before submission to Physical Review D and peer venues in 2025, the AI-policy compliance gap most consistent across the cohort is generic disclosure language without tool-version specificity. In our analysis of anonymized Physical Review D-targeted submissions, manuscripts with complete AI disclosure (tool name, version, specific use case, all-author confirmation) clear desk-screen at the same rate as manuscripts without AI use; manuscripts with incomplete or missing disclosure trigger editorial queries that add 1-2 weeks to the timeline.
Physical Review D (APS) follows the publisher's public AI policy, but authors should verify the current journal page before submission because AI-use rules, disclosure locations, and image guidance continue to change.
What can Physical Review D authors do to stay ahead of AI policy changes?
APS's AI policy framework continues to evolve as 2026 brings new ICMJE recommendations, COPE guidance refinements, and journal-specific clarifications. Physical Review D authors targeting particle physics, cosmology, or gravitation advance with full theoretical or observational characterization submissions should track three signals throughout 2026:
Policy updates from APS. The publisher's public AI policy guidance is updated over time. Physical Review D authors who pre-register their disclosure language at submission time tend to face fewer revisions during the 2026 transition period than authors who write boilerplate disclosures.
Field-specific clarifications for particle physics, cosmology, or gravitation advance with full theoretical or observational characterization. Different research domains see different AI use patterns. The APS FAQ lists what counts as substantive AI use, including scientific reasoning or interpretation, drafting or revising scientific claims, literature synthesis beyond routine organization, figure generation or image analysis, derivations or calculations, code generation or debugging that materially affects results, simulations or numerical analysis, and data or statistical analysis. Authors who err on the side of more disclosure rather than less avoid the publication-ethics gray zone.
Reviewer disclosure norms. APS's policy asks reviewers to state any AI use beyond polishing in a note to the editor, and an author who suspects a report was AI-generated should alert the editor through the notes-to-editor section of the submission.
- Manusights internal preview corpus (150+ Physical Review D-targeted manuscripts, 2025 cohort)
Competitor pricing and feature claims on this page reflect publicly listed information as of 2026-05-14. Pricing and features may change; verify against each vendor's current product page before decision-making.
Frequently asked questions
Yes, with policy-required disclosure. Physical Review D (APS) follows APS's current AI policy and broader publication-ethics guidance. AI tools can be used for language editing, manuscript preparation, and analysis support, but substantive AI use must be disclosed in the paper, and authors are not required to disclose AI used to polish, condense, or otherwise lightly edit the text. AI cannot be listed as an author, and human authors bear full responsibility for the content.
Disclose substantive AI use in the paper itself: AI used in conducting research goes where other methods are described, AI used for figure generation is explained in the figure caption, and other uses worth disclosing go in the Acknowledgment statement. State the AI tool name and version, how the AI assisted, and how the authors directed and verified the output. Editors may request more documentation if concerns emerge.
Yes, with verification and disclosure. APS says AI can be used for data visualizations, but authors are responsible for verifying the accuracy of all AI-generated figures or graphics and must ensure the images do not violate third-party copyrights, licensing agreements, or attribution requirements. Any AI use for figure generation should be mentioned and explained in the figure caption.
Physical Review D can treat undisclosed substantive AI use as a publication-ethics problem. The response depends on the publisher policy, the timing, and whether the scientific record is affected.
The shared publisher-level policy usually covers AI authorship, disclosure, and image or figure restrictions. Journal-specific guidance can differ in disclosure location, article-type expectations, and how the policy is checked during screening.
Sources
- APS AI policy (accessed 2026-10-09)
- Physical Review D author guidelines (accessed 2026-10-09)
- ICMJE recommendations on AI use (accessed 2026-05-08)
- COPE guidance on AI in research publication (accessed 2026-05-08)
Free guide
AI cannot be an author. None of the 41 policies we checked allows it.
Not a co-author, not an acknowledged contributor with a byline, not "with assistance from". What they do require is a disclosure, and the wording matters. The guide has the statement filled in, with what each publisher asks for beside it.
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.
Private API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.
Put the guidance to work
Choose the practical next step for your research.
Start with the question in front of you, or use the guided learning path when you want a clearer view of the full publishing process.
Where to go next
Start here
Same journal, next question
- Physical Review D Submission Guide
- How to Avoid Desk Rejection at Physical Review D
- Is Physical Review D a Good Journal? Fit Verdict
- Physical Review D Review Time: What Authors Can Actually Expect
- Physical Review D Impact Factor 2026: 5.3, Q1, Rank 18/84
- Physical Review D Response to Reviewers: How to Write a Reply to the Referee That Wins (2026)