# How to use AI to review your paper before submission

> A practical workflow for getting AI feedback on a manuscript: what to ask for, how to check the answers, how to verify references, and what to keep private.

Updated 2026-10-15. 6 min read.

AI feedback is most useful as a structured pre-submission check, not a request to "review my paper". The workflow below gets you reviewer-style feedback you can verify, in the order that saves the most time.

## 1. Decide what you want reviewed

"Review my paper" gets a generic answer. Ask for what reviewers at your venue will judge: the strength of the main claim, baselines and ablations, reproducibility, clarity, and fit. If the venue publishes its reviewer form, use its criteria.

## 2. Check references separately, with databases

Do not ask a language model whether your references are correct; it can call an invented reference plausible. Look each one up by DOI or title in Crossref, OpenAlex or arXiv, and compare the title, year and first author with the published record. Flag retracted papers.

## 3. Ask for issues with quotes

Ask for each problem together with the exact sentence it is about, its severity and a concrete fix. Then check that every quote really appears in your manuscript. A point you cannot locate is not one to act on.

## 4. Get more than one independent opinion

A second review written without seeing the first shows which weaknesses are real: points both reviews raise matter most. Disagreement tells you where a human reader is needed.

## 5. Fix in order of severity, then re-check

1. **Critical.** Anything that undermines the main claim: a missing comparison, a flawed evaluation, a number that does not match the tables.
2. **Major.** Reproducibility gaps, unclear methods, missing related work.
3. **Minor.** Wording, figures, formatting.

## 6. Keep it private

- Use a tool that keeps your manuscript visible only to you and does not train on it.
- Do not paste unpublished co-authored work into a tool without your co-authors’ agreement.
- Follow your venue’s AI policy, including any disclosure it asks for.

## Do this faster with NoveltyAxis

Does this workflow in one run: reviewer reports and rubric scores, a fix list quoting your PDF, every reference checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and arXiv, and suggested venues. See the [ai paper reviewer](https://noveltyaxis.com/paper-review/index.md).

## Questions

### What is the best prompt to review a paper with AI?

Name the venue’s criteria, ask for issues ranked by severity with the exact quoted sentence and a suggested fix, and ask separately for what is missing (baselines, ablations, related work). Then verify every quote and reference yourself.

### How long does an AI review take?

A chat answer takes seconds but covers only what you paste. A full review that checks references and searches the literature takes longer; NoveltyAxis takes 15 to 40 minutes.

### Should I disclose that I used AI to review my paper?

Follow your venue’s policy. Many ask authors to disclose AI use in writing; using a tool to find problems you then fix yourself is usually treated differently, but check.

HTML version: https://noveltyaxis.com/guides/how-to-use-ai-to-review-your-paper/