PLOS ONE's AI Policy: How the World's Largest Journal Handles AI Disclosure

PLOS publishes sixteen journals, and says its ethical publishing practice policies apply to all of them unless otherwise noted. The table shows the 2025 article counts PLOS lists:

The volume disparity is enormous. PLOS ONE published 18,300 articles in 2025, more than all other PLOS journals combined. This scale affects how the AI policy functions in practice, even though the text is identical.

At PLOS Biology (556 papers in 2025), an editor might personally review the Methods section of every accepted paper for AI disclosure compliance. At PLOS ONE (18,300 papers in 2025), that's not possible. Here's what PLOS says about how concerns are caught:

Author disclosure: Authors declare AI use in the body of the article, in a dedicated section of the Methods, in the Acknowledgement section, or in the relevant figure legend. PLOS asks for the tool names, how they were used, and how the authors evaluated the outputs.

Peer review flagging: PLOS says it follows up if editors, reviewers, staff or readers report concerns about undisclosed AI use. PLOS ONE uses a "soundness, not significance" review standard, reviewers assess whether the science is technically sound rather than whether it represents a major advance. But AI-related concerns about text quality or integrity fall within the reviewer's purview.

Automated screening: PLOS says it uses AI tools to support submission checks, screening and integrity investigations, and that it may use available AI detection tools in article-level checks or assessments.

Post-publication scrutiny: PLOS says it will investigate concerns raised about PLOS publications regardless of the time since publication, and regardless of whether they are raised internally, by authors, or by anonymous, pseudonymous or named third parties. Every paper is free to read, so readers are an additional channel for concerns, although PLOS asks people not to rely solely on posts to blogs, social media or other third-party websites to make it aware of concerns.

PLOS ONE reviews manuscripts for technical soundness, not impact. The AI disclosure should name the tools used, describe how they were used and what they affected, and describe how you evaluated the validity of the outputs:

Standard disclosure (language improvement alone does not require disclosure at PLOS, so this is optional wording):

"During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT (GPT-4, OpenAI) to improve the language and clarity of the Discussion section. All AI-generated suggestions were reviewed and edited by the authors, who take full responsibility for the content of the published article."

For a paper with computational analysis:

"The authors used GitHub Copilot (Microsoft) to assist with writing R scripts for the statistical analysis. ChatGPT (GPT-4, OpenAI) was used to improve the readability of the Methods and Results sections. All code was validated against manual calculations, and all text was reviewed by the authors. The authors take full responsibility for the published content."

For a paper by non-native English speakers:

"This manuscript was originally drafted in Mandarin and translated/edited using ChatGPT (GPT-4, OpenAI) for English language clarity. All translated text was reviewed by the authors for scientific accuracy. The authors take full responsibility for the content."

PLOS says it does not forbid AI use and only requires that it is used responsibly and disclosed transparently. It also says AI use disclosures will not negatively affect your article's review or editorial decision.

PLOS follows COPE guidelines for handling publication ethics issues:

During review:

• Concerns about undisclosed or unacceptable AI use may prompt an integrity investigation

• Peer review can be delayed

• Editorial action can include rejection

After publication:

• Editorial action can include retraction or an Expression of Concern

• PLOS may inform the authors' institutions or require institutional assurances about the reliability of the article's content

The open-access multiplier: Every PLOS ONE paper is freely accessible. A correction or retraction shows up in Google Scholar, PubMed, and Crossref without paywall barriers. For PLOS ONE specifically, the high volume means there are always many eyes on recent publications.

PLOS ONE's academic editor model: Unlike journals with a small, full-time editorial team, PLOS ONE relies on thousands of academic editors (practicing researchers who volunteer to handle manuscripts). Each academic editor oversees peer review for the manuscripts they handle, while PLOS's central Publication Ethics team follows up on concerns that have implications for the integrity, validity or reliability of submitted or published articles.

PLOS was one of the first publishers to mandate data availability for all published papers. This requirement intersects with AI disclosure in important ways:

• If AI helped generate analysis code, that code should be deposited alongside the data

• If AI-generated scripts are part of your analysis pipeline, they should be reproducible without AI tool access

• PLOS ONE's data availability policy means your methods are auditable, which increases the practical consequences of incomplete disclosure

The transparency chain, data availability plus AI disclosure plus open access, creates a level of accountability at PLOS ONE that's actually higher than at many subscription journals, despite the volume difference.

PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports are the two largest single journals by volume. Both use "technical soundness" as their primary review criterion (rather than requiring significance or novelty). Both prohibit AI authorship. The main difference is that PLOS ONE's data availability mandate is more strictly enforced, which creates a stronger transparency framework around AI use.

For all submissions:

• Disclose AI use that generates or revises content or supports the research, in a dedicated section of the Methods, the Acknowledgements, or the relevant figure legend. Be specific but don't overthink it, PLOS ONE's review standard focuses on soundness, not style.

• Email the journal office if you are unsure whether a particular AI use needs disclosure; PLOS directs pre-publication AI questions there.

• If you're a non-native English speaker using AI for translation or language editing, PLOS does not require disclosure of language improvements and recommends, but does not strictly require, disclosing translation.

For computational papers:

• Deposit all code, including AI-assisted scripts, in a public repository

• PLOS ONE's data availability policy means your code is auditable, make sure AI-generated code actually works

• If your paper describes an AI method, clearly separate the research description from any writing AI disclosure

For clinical and biomedical papers:

• Don't process patient data through cloud AI tools

• Clinical interpretations should be human-generated

• If your paper includes a systematic review or meta-analysis, disclose any AI assistance in the screening process

For papers in any discipline:

• PLOS ONE publishes across all sciences, the AI disclosure format is the same regardless of field

• If you used AI tools during revision, update the Methods disclosure in your revised manuscript

• Don't assume that PLOS ONE's soundness-based review means relaxed AI policy enforcement. It doesn't.

Before submission checklist:

• [ ] AI disclosure in the body of the article (Methods, Acknowledgements or figure legend)

• [ ] Tool name, how it was used, and how you checked its output specified

• [ ] AI-generated figures disclosed in the figure legend and checked for accuracy

• [ ] Data and code deposited in public repository

• [ ] AI-generated code validated independently

• [ ] All co-authors aware of disclosure

A PLOS ONE submission readiness check can help verify your PLOS ONE submission meets the journal's requirements before submission.

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