Editor and reviewer workspace

Evaluate whether AI use has been reported with enough detail to assess.

Use descriptive item statuses, record manuscript evidence, and generate structured author requests while retaining editorial and scholarly judgment.

Step 1

Review context

Record optional manuscript information and the authors’ own declaration.

Assessment name Manuscript title or identifier Journal or review context Location of AI declaration Authors’ declared AI use

Step 2

Estimate likely applicability

Select the apparent materiality and functions. These selections highlight likely items but do not replace manuscript-based judgment.

Materiality level

AI functions

Important: Missing reporting is not the same as non-applicability. Use N/A only when the underlying use did not occur or the item is genuinely irrelevant.

Step 3

Assess each reporting item

Open an item for the validated requirement, plain-language interpretation, evidence to look for, common weakness, example, and suggested reviewer comment.

Step 4

Generate structured feedback

Choose a concise editorial query, full peer-review subsection, itemized requests, or domain summary.

Output format Optional general observation

Generated output

Reporting assessment

Assess the checklist and generate comments.

Step 5

Advanced editor and reviewer outputs

Generate editorial screening, revision-verification, second-round comparison, and author-facing forms without calculating a manuscript score.

Supplementary implementation feature

Advanced output format Include adequately reported strengths Include descriptive status counts

Round comparison snapshot

Save the current assessment as Round 1, revise the assessment, then generate a second-round comparison.

No Round 1 snapshot saved.

Advanced output

Editorial or reviewer report

Choose an output format and generate the report.