If you suspect a research paper contains AI-generated text or figures that were not disclosed—or that may violate the journal’s rules—report the specific evidence to the journal or institution responsible for reviewing it. A suspicion, detector score, or unusual-looking image does not by itself prove AI use, intent, or misconduct. The applicable policy and the evidence must be assessed by the appropriate officials.
1. Check the journal and institution policies
Start with the current author instructions and publication-ethics policy for the journal that published or is considering the paper. Find the editor or designated ethics contact. If your concern may involve the research itself or author conduct, also identify the relevant institution’s research-integrity policy and reporting official. Policies vary by venue and can change, so do not assume one publisher’s requirements apply to another journal.
For examples of that variation, COPE’s AI guidance calls for authors to disclose AI use in manuscript writing, image production, or research and says authors remain responsible for the content. JAMA Network’s guidance specifies disclosure details such as the tool name and version, manufacturer, dates and nature of use, and affected content. CDC’s May 28, 2026 guidance recommends accountability and disclosure of substantive uses while directing authors to the applicable publisher requirements. Elsevier’s policy and the Royal Society of Chemistry’s policy address AI-generated or AI-assisted images and research content in their own ways. These examples are not universal rules; check the live policy for the actual journal.
For your own records, note the policy version or the date you accessed it. Identify the particular requirement you believe may be relevant rather than alleging a violation based only on the presence of AI-like text or imagery.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
2. Document the observation without overstating it
Make the concern verifiable. Give the paper’s title, authors, journal, and DOI or other stable identifier. Pinpoint the passage, figure, panel, caption, or page. Then explain what you observed and why it raises a question under the identified policy.
When available and appropriate, include supporting material such as comparison images, source material, public records, or relevant disclosures. Keep original files and notes, explain where submitted material came from, and avoid edits that obscure what was observed. If the concern relates to possible research misconduct in a U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) setting, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) lists useful allegation information including the people involved, the conduct, when and where it occurred, supporting documentation, and relevant grant or funding details. That list is specific to ORI’s remit, not a universal reporting form. See ORI’s allegation guidance.
Distinguish direct observations from conclusions. A detector score, stylistic impression, or visual artifact is not proof that AI produced content or that anyone broke a rule. The publisher and ethics guidance cited here does not establish a universal forensic test or threshold for identifying AI-generated content. State what your evidence does and does not establish, and leave the assessment to the designated process.
3. Send the concern to the appropriate recipient
For a journal-policy or publication concern
For a concern about disclosure or compliance in a submitted or published paper, contact the journal’s editor or its named publication-ethics channel. Use the contact listed on the journal’s current website, and provide the paper identifier, precise location, relevant policy provision, and supporting evidence.
For a concern about research integrity or author conduct
If the issue may involve the underlying research or author conduct, check the institution’s policy and report to the official it designates. A journal and an institution can have separate roles. COPE’s guidance says journals should contact institutions when author misconduct is suspected and cooperate with institutional investigations and evidence requests; the institution may be positioned to investigate conduct, while the journal handles publication matters. See COPE’s guidance on suspected misconduct in a submitted manuscript.
For matters within the U.S. Public Health Service framework
For research misconduct allegations within ORI’s PHS jurisdiction, ORI says allegations are made to the institution where the conduct occurred; a complainant may also contact ORI or the relevant PHS funding agency. ORI lists AskORI@hhs.gov as a reporting contact. Jurisdiction matters: an allegation outside ORI’s remit may be referred elsewhere. Consult ORI’s handling-allegations guidance and confirm the appropriate route for the case.
4. Review confidentiality before sharing sensitive information
Before sending sensitive material, read the receiving institution’s policy for the reporting channel, information requested, complainant role, and available protections. ORI describes confidentiality and good-faith complainant protections within the PHS framework, including practical steps to protect complainants against retaliation. Those provisions are not a promise of anonymity or protection in every institution, jurisdiction, or process. See ORI’s whistleblower guidance. If a designated confidential process is available, avoid circulating the allegation publicly.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.5. Write a neutral, actionable report
A concise report should give the recipient enough information to locate the material and assess it without asking you to prove more than you can establish. Include:
Best Value
- Paper: title, authors, journal, and publication or submission identifier.
- Location: figure and panel, caption, page, or exact text passage.
- Observation: what appears inconsistent, unusual, or potentially undisclosed.
- Basis: the comparison, source file, disclosure, or policy clause that supports the concern.
- Scope and uncertainty: what the evidence establishes and what it does not.
- Context: date, relevant funding or grant details, and institutional connection, if known and relevant.
- Request: ask the recipient to assess the concern under its policy and say whether more documentation is needed.
Keep the tone factual. Do not declare someone guilty or demand a particular punishment. The recipient—not the initial reporter—evaluates the evidence and decides what action is warranted. COPE’s retraction guidance says retraction may be warranted when clear evidence of a major error, data or image irregularity, or misrepresentation compromises findings; editors ordinarily make the final retraction decision. ORI oversees institutional findings within its remit. See COPE’s retraction guidelines and ORI’s handling-allegations guidance.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
