Publishing Strategy10 min read•Updated Oct 9, 2026

PLOS Medicine AI Policy: ChatGPT and Generative AI Disclosure Rules for PLOS Medicine Authors

PLOS Medicine requires AI disclosure under PLOS rules. AI cannot be an author. This guide covers where to disclose, what to disclose, and the consequences of non-compliance for PLOS Medicine submissions.

By Manusights Editorial TeamPublished May 8, 2026

Editorial processThe Manusights editorial team researches and maintains these guides using source review, field-specific analysis, and our documented editorial process.How we work

Readiness scan

AI policy covered? See what PLOS Medicine reviewers are likely to push back on.

The AI policy governs disclosure, not how the science is judged. Run the Free Readiness Scan with PLOS Medicine as your target to see desk-rejection risk, likely reviewer concerns, and journal fit.

Check my readinessPrivate API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.See example reports

Acceptance rate4%Overall selectivity Time to decision67 days medianFirst decision Open access APC$6,460Gold OA option

What makes this journal worth targeting

PLOS Medicine's scope and readership determine whether the journal is a useful target.
Scope specificity matters more than headline metrics for most manuscript decisions.
PLOS metrics reports an acceptance rate of 4% (2025) for PLOS Medicine. This journal-wide figure is not an individual manuscript probability.

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: PLOS Medicine takes 67 days median. A faster-turnaround journal may suit a grant or job deadline better.
If OA is required: gold OA costs $6,460. Check institutional agreements before submitting.

Quick answer: The PLOS Medicine AI policy follows PLOS's rules calibrated to medical research with global-health-relevance and methodological transparency submissions.

AI tools can be used for manuscript preparation but AI use that generates or revises content must be disclosed in the body of the article; PLOS does not require disclosure for language improvements such as spelling, grammar, or rephrasing for clarity. AI cannot be listed as an author of any PLOS Medicine paper. Using AI to fabricate or misrepresent primary research data is unacceptable under PLOS policy, and any AI use in figures must be disclosed in the figure legend.

PLOS Medicine 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 PLOS Medicine submission readiness check which includes an automated AI-disclosure audit, or work through this guide manually. Need broader context? See the PLOS Medicine journal overview.

The Manusights PLOS Medicine readiness scan. This guide tells you what PLOS Medicine's editors look for when verifying AI disclosure at desk-screen. 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 PLOS Medicine 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.

Submission is through Editorial Manager. PLOS Medicine prefers an abstract of 300 words or fewer, with a 500-word maximum, and sets no restriction on manuscript length. The named editorial-culture quirk: PLOS Medicine academic editors enforce reproducibility-first review with explicit data-availability and code-availability statements.

What does PLOS Medicine's AI policy require?

PLOS Medicine authors should check four policy areas under PLOS's current AI framework before submission:

Rule 1: Disclose AI use that generates or revises content

Authors should document AI use that generates or revises content, or supports the research, with the tool name, how it was used and which parts of the work it affected, and how the output was checked. Put the disclosure in the body of the article (a dedicated section of the Methods, the Acknowledgments, or the relevant figure legend) rather than in the cover letter. Examples that REQUIRE disclosure at PLOS Medicine:

For PLOS Medicine-targeted manuscripts addressing medical research with global-health-relevance and methodological transparency: using ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or similar to generate or revise manuscript content passing through PLOS Medicine editorial review (language-only improvements such as spelling, grammar, or rephrasing for clarity do not require disclosure)

For PLOS Medicine submissions: using AI to generate boilerplate text for limitations, ethics statements, or PLOS Medicine-specific response-to-reviewers letters that cite PLOS's framework

For PLOS Medicine literature reviews: using AI for citation discovery or summarizing prior PLOS Medicine work; PLOS's policy applies regardless of citation context

For PLOS Medicine analytical pipelines: AI-assisted code generation requires Methods or code disclosure under the current publisher policy, particularly when code affects analysis

Examples that do NOT require AI disclosure:

At PLOS Medicine, using grammar/spell checkers (Word) for line-level edits, when used without generative AI features for new manuscript content

For PLOS Medicine submissions, using reference managers (Zotero, EndNote) for citation formatting against PLOS's style guide

For PLOS Medicine statistical analysis, using established statistical software (R, Stata, SPSS) where the algorithm is the established tool documented in PLOS Medicine's methodological norm, not a generative AI

For PLOS Medicine submissions, using AI to translate manuscript text into English from another language (PLOS recommends disclosing this to preempt concerns but does not strictly require it)

Rule 2: AI cannot be an author

No AI tool can be listed as an author of a PLOS Medicine paper, particularly for medical research with global-health-relevance and methodological transparency-class submissions. Under PLOS's policy: authorship requires the ability to take responsibility for the content, agree to be accountable for accuracy, and to consent to publication. AI tools cannot do any of these in PLOS Medicine's editorial framework. This rule is consistent across all PLOS-published journals.

Rule 3: AI-generated figures may not misrepresent original research data

PLOS allows AI use in figure preparation provided AI-generated content is not used to misrepresent primary research outputs and the use of AI does not introduce invalid content or place any personal or sensitive data at risk. For example, authors can use AI-generated figures for illustrative purposes or to summarize results, but should know that data uploaded to an AI tool may be ingested into the tool's training dataset. Disclose any AI use for figure preparation in the figure legend, check the accuracy and validity of AI-generated figure content, and make sure AI-generated content complies with the PLOS policy on Licenses and Copyright.

Rule 4: Reviewer and editor AI use

PLOS reviewers and editors must not upload submissions, submission summaries, or comments that reveal unpublished content to generative AI tools. AI tools cannot serve as reviewers or decision-issuing editors. Permitted uses are limited to ones that keep manuscript content confidential and do not misrepresent the reviewer's or editor's own contribution, such as copyediting or translating their own comments, and any such use is disclosed in the review form or decision letter.

How does PLOS Medicine's AI policy compare to peer journals?

Rule	PLOS Medicine stance	PLOS default	Policy basis
AI authorship	Prohibited	Prohibited	Authorship/accountability
Disclosure location	Methods section, Acknowledgments, or figure legend	Methods section, Acknowledgments, or figure legend	Authorship/accountability
AI-generated figures	Allowed with legend disclosure; may not misrepresent primary data	Allowed with legend disclosure; may not misrepresent primary data	Image-integrity guidance
Reviewer AI use	Disclosure required	Disclosure required	Peer-review confidentiality guidance
Enforcement intensity	Article-level checks, which may use AI detection tools	Article-level checks, which may use AI detection tools	Submission-stage policy check

Source: Journals author instructions plus PLOS Medicine author guidelines.

What does AI disclosure look like in a PLOS Medicine Methods section?

Acceptable disclosure language for PLOS Medicine submissions:

"For our medical research with global-health-relevance and methodological transparency-focused manuscript at PLOS Medicine, 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 PLOS Medicine submission addressing medical research with global-health-relevance and methodological transparency, 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 does NOT pass PLOS Medicine's desk-screen:

For PLOS Medicine addressing medical research with global-health-relevance and methodological transparency: "AI tools were used in manuscript preparation." Too vague to meet the PLOS disclosure requirement for PLOS Medicine submissions; PLOS asks for the tool name, a description of how it was used, and how the output was checked

"We acknowledge AI assistance in the Acknowledgments." (The Acknowledgments is an allowed location, but the statement still needs the tool name, how it was used, and how the output was checked.)

"ChatGPT helped write this paper." (Insufficient detail on use case)

No disclosure when AI was used (publication-ethics violation)

Desk-screen risks we see before submission

For PLOS Medicine-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. PLOS Medicine editorial team flags this as a common mistake against medical research with global-health-relevance and methodological transparency submissions. Publisher policies differ on whether AI disclosure belongs in Methods, a dedicated AI-use statement, acknowledgments, or another manuscript section. 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. PLOS requires the name of each tool, a description of how it was used, and how the output was checked. "AI tools were used" without specifics does not meet that requirement. Check whether your AI disclosure has the required specificity

What is the PLOS Medicine 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	PLOS Medicine'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 PLOS Medicine-targeted submissions, 2025 cohort.

Submit If

For PLOS Medicine submissions on medical research with global-health-relevance and methodological transparency: the manuscript documents substantive generative-AI use with the tool name, version or access date, specific use case, and disclosure location required by the current journal policy

For PLOS Medicine: no AI tool is listed as an author; all listed authors meet authorship criteria and take responsibility for the final manuscript

For PLOS Medicine: figures and schematics representing original research data come from the actual research, with any AI-assisted image or figure workflow checked against the current journal image policy

For PLOS Medicine 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.

Get free manuscript previewPrivate API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.See example reports

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 PLOS Medicine.

Of the manuscripts our team screened before submission to PLOS Medicine 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 PLOS Medicine-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.

PLOS Medicine follows the publisher's public AI policy.

What can PLOS Medicine authors do to stay ahead of AI policy changes?

PLOS's AI policy framework continues to evolve as 2026 brings new ICMJE recommendations, COPE guidance refinements, and journal-specific clarifications. PLOS Medicine authors targeting medical research with global-health-relevance and methodological transparency submissions should track three signals throughout 2026:

Policy updates from PLOS. The publisher's public AI policy guidance is updated over time.

Field-specific clarifications for medical research with global-health-relevance and methodological transparency. Different research domains see different AI use patterns. PLOS's policy already separates AI use for language improvements, which needs no disclosure, from AI use to generate or revise content, which does. Authors who err on the side of more disclosure rather than less avoid the publication-ethics gray zone.

Reviewer disclosure norms. As PLOS extends AI-disclosure rules to peer reviewers, the response rate from PLOS Medicine reviewers may shift. Authors should expect that any AI use by PLOS Medicine reviewers or editors is now also disclosed in the review form or decision letter.

Manusights internal preview corpus (150+ PLOS Medicine-targeted manuscripts, 2025 cohort)

Frequently asked questions

Yes, with policy-required disclosure. PLOS Medicine follows PLOS's AI policy. AI tools may be used to support development or revision of a submission, but any AI use to generate or revise content, or to support the research, must be disclosed in the body of the article (a dedicated section of the Methods, the Acknowledgments, or the relevant figure legend). PLOS does not require disclosure of AI use for language improvements such as correcting spelling or grammar or rephrasing for clarity. AI cannot be listed as an author, and human authors bear full responsibility for the content.

Disclose in the body of the article: a dedicated section of the Methods, the Acknowledgments, or the relevant figure legend. PLOS asks for the name of each tool, a description of how it was used and which aspects of the work it affected, and a description of how the authors evaluated the validity of its outputs. PLOS may use AI detection tools in article-level checks and follows up if concerns are reported.

Yes, with conditions. PLOS allows AI use in figure preparation provided AI-generated content is not used to misrepresent primary research outputs and does not introduce invalid content or put personal or sensitive data at risk. Any AI use for figure preparation must be clearly disclosed in the figure legend, and authors remain responsible for the accuracy of the figure and for compliance with the PLOS Licenses and Copyright policy. Using AI to fabricate or misrepresent primary research data is unacceptable.

PLOS Medicine 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.

Free guide

AI cannot be an author. None of the 49 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.

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.

Find my next step Choose a research stage or a specific kind of help.Learn in Academy Follow a guided path through the publishing process.

Internal navigation

Where to go next

Start here

PLOS Medicine journal guide

Same journal, next question

Browse this topic

Journal AI policy guides for authors

Supporting reads

Conversion step

Run a free manuscript preview

Back to all articles