- FAQs
- Library Calendar
-
Off Campus Login
Log in to the Library's remote access system using your MyID account.
The goal for this page is to share potential uses and limitations of AI solutions for literature searching, writing and publishing as they emerge.
AI has capabilities that can help authors and researchers save time when searching the literature and writing text. Solutions like Microsoft Copilot can help writers organize ideas, correct grammar, develop well-structured text, and summarize large amounts of text.
Literature search tools like Scite, Elicit, or Consensus can be useful for preliminary literature searches. They can help create digests, summaries, and visualizations of some literature, and kick start your review.
Along with the potential benefits come potential problems like factual errors, poorly chosen or fake sources, security and confidentiality risks, plagiarism, and lack of accountability. When deciding whether and how to use AI solutions in your review, first review all applicable guidelines for AI use. These include guidelines from your employer or institution, professional organizations, journals, and granting agencies (see below).
Review the AI Storefront and the Artificial Intelligence Acceptable Use Policy for more information. Search for #ADM3700 in the policy database .
Helpful Resources
Citing with AI
Authors should be transparent in their use of AI tools at any stage of the writing process. Here are some best practices for using AI while writing, creating images for publications or presentations, or completing class assignments. Review the ICJME guidelines for additional detail.
- Check with the journal or instructor before using AI technologies in your work. Specific instructions for acknowledging the use of AI and citing AI content should also be sought directly from a journal or course instructor.
- Cite or acknowledge the use of AI technologies in your work. Consult well-known style guides or professional recommendations for guidance on the proper use and reporting of AI technologies in research and writing projects.
- Check AI content for accuracy and reliability. Generative AI tools are known to provide incorrect, incomplete, and made-up information and citations. The generation of biased information is also a noted issue. Review the content and references generated by AI technologies before using it in your work.
It’s appropriate to cite if you use AI for the following:
- To edit, analyze, organize, or refine your writing.
- To synthesize literature
- If you used AI as part of the methodology of your work
- To create or refine code
- To create tables, figures, or other graphics
- To translate your own writing or other sources into another language
The APA recommends citing AI in the text where appropriate, most likely in the Methods section, and in the reference list. They also recommend citing the tool in the paper’s author’s note or acknowledgements section. Please review author guidelines to confirm individual publisher preferences.
Examples of AI citations are shown below. The APA guide has additional examples of citing specific chats on their site .
Example from APA: AI Company Name. (year, month day). Title of chat in italics [Description, such as Generative AI chat]. Tool Name/Model. URL of the chat or tool
Example of manuscript acknowledgment: The authors used ChatGPT (GPT-5, OPen.AI, https://chatpgpt.com) to review and edit this manuscript
Copilot Chat
MD Anderson employees can use the enterprise data protection version of Microsoft 365’s Copilot . This version ensures that all data stays within the organization and does not train Microsoft’s public Copilot model. Copilot has generative AI functionality – like ChatGPT – to provide answers, summarize information, and generate ideas based on the prompts you type. Although this version is protected, you should never include PHI or PPI in your prompts and always validate any output from your prompts.
To use this version of Copilot:
- Go to Microsoft Office Chat
- Sign into the app using your MD Anderson credentials
- Choose the Work option to get started
Email with AI (copilot chat)
Email with Copilot chat in Microsoft Outlook uses AI to help you draft and summarize emails.
How to use email with Copilot Chat:
- Open Outlook and select the Copilot icon
- In the Copilot chatbox, prompt the chat or choose a suggested prompt.
- Revise your prompt for a different answer
- Review AI content for accuracy.
Example prompts:
- Summarize this email
- Suggest my next step
- Revise your prompt for a different answer
- Rewrite this sentence to sound more professional
Literature searching with AI
Artificial Intelligence tools like Consensus or Elicit can be useful for preliminary literature searches. They can help you find some topics and articles to kick start your review. However, AI tools are not comprehensive or reliable enough to be the only tool you use for your search.
Here are a few best practices when using AI tools for literature searching:
-
Review results for accuracy
Some AI tools have been known to create false references. Verify each reference by reviewing the full-text paper or ask a librarian for help.
-
Review article summaries for accuracy
There are AI article summary tools like Scite or Consensus. These summaries may be misleading or incomplete so review the full text of the article. If you can't find the full text, request the article for free through the library's interlibrary loan service.
-
Use Academic Databases as well as AI Tools
AI tools don't tell you which journals they do or don't have access to. Be sure to check databases like PubMed, Scopus or others to confirm that you've found all of the relevant literature on your topic. AI tools often don't search so far back in time and may miss the most highly cited articles.
-
Do Not Use AI Tools for Systematic Review Searches
AI tools do not provide the proper transparency or reproducibility required for a systematic review search. Work with an expert searcher to learn the proper methodology for systematic reviews. Review Cochrane’s position statement on the use of AI in systematic reviews .
*Note: The library provides Covidence for screening systematic review search results. Covidence has an AI predictive tool which helps to streamline the screening process and save you time. Email a librarian for more information.
-
Ask a Librarian
If you have questions about literature searching or using AI tools for literature searching, contact a librarian for a consultation or customized literature search .
*Note: The Research Medical Library does not endorse the tools mentioned in this post, except for Covidence. Covidence has been approved for use at MD Anderson by Information Security. However, our librarians and editors are open to exploring new AI tools with you!
Peer Review with AI
Confidential data should never be shared with a generative AI tool; copying the text of an article being reviewed into such a tool may constitute a breach of confidentiality. Authors should check with the journal to determine whether it has a policy on AI use in peer review. For example, Elsevier, Springer Nature, The BMJ, and Wiley3-6 all explicitly state that papers under review should never be uploaded to a generative AI tool. (Note: As AI tools and their uses are constantly evolving, policies and guidelines are also changing frequently—authors and reviewers should regularly check publishers’ websites for updates.)
Remember, the journal asked you to review the paper because it values your expertise and believes that you can make a meaningful contribution to the advancement of science and the publication process. They want to read your comments and critiques, not an AI tool’s. To quote Wiley, “The peer review process is a human endeavor, and reviewers are ultimately responsible and remain accountable for providing a peer review report. This process should not be delegated to a GenAI tool.”1
It should be noted that some publishers, such as The BMJ and Wiley,5,6 permit the use of generative AI tools for improving the quality of the review itself (e.g., checking spelling and grammar), not for assessing the article; however, they do ask reviewers to disclose their use of the tool.
1Wiley. Best practice guidelines on research integrity and publishing ethics. Accessed August 28, 2025. https://authorservices.wiley.com/ethics-guidelines/index.html#22
Scientific Figures and AI
Scientific figures are critical when communicating in science. There are dozens of tools available for creating figures. When using AI to create images for presentations or publications, authors should consider a few key things.
- Only use AI if it is the best way to communicate the data.
- Do not upload PHI or PII to AI tools. If you’d like to use AI for images, contact the Data Governance offices to review appropriate tools.
- Cite the tools used to create images in the image caption.
Publishers use tools to review images for AI use or possible manipulation prior to publication. The library provides tools to review your images prior to publication:
Writing NIH Proposals with AI
The NIH issued guidance (NOT-OD-25-132 ) on the use of AI in preparing research grant applications. Applications that are substantially developed by AI, or contain sections substantially developed by AI, will not be considered original and may be rejected. If AI is discovered after an award is made, NIH may pursue actions ranging from disallowing costs to terminating the grant and may refer cases to the Office of Research Integrity.
Writing with AI
Here are a few examples where AI tools can help writers:
Scientific research and writing tasks :
- Brainstorm ideas
- Analyze data, create visualizations, and perform statistical modeling
- Create outlines and rough drafts
- Paraphrase or summarize text
- Identify reference sources
- Shorten passages
- Edit text for grammar, punctuation, or style
Along with the potential benefits come potential problems like factual errors, poorly chosen or fake sources, security and confidentiality risks, plagiarism, and lack of accountability. Here are some best practices to consider before using an AI-based application.
Follow all guidelines
When deciding whether and how to use AI tools in your writing, first review all applicable guidelines for AI use. These include guidelines from your employer or institution, professional organizations, journals, and granting agencies.
Do not List AI as an author
Authors should always disclose the use of AI tools when publishing or generating academic materials (ICJME and AMA guidelines). Authors are responsible for the integrity of their published content, including text generated by AI tools. Therefore, AI tools should not be listed as co-authors, as they do not qualify for authorship. Instead, they should be listed in the acknowledgments or methods section of the manuscript (AMA guideline ).
Safeguard PII and PHI
We are prohibited from entering personally identifiable information, protected health information, or institutional intellectual property, including unpublished manuscripts and grants, into web-based search engines and tools such has ChatGPT and other generative platforms (ADM1187 ).
Do not use AI for peer review
Reviewers of journal articles and grant applications are trusted and required to maintain confidentiality throughout the peer review process. Thus, using AI to assist in peer review would involve a breach of confidentiality .
Ask the Library
The Research Medical Library has Scientific Editors on staff to review manuscripts and grant proposals. If you are an MD Anderson employee, email RML-Editing@mdanderson.org to take advantage of this service.
Resources
- Microsoft Copilot (enterprise) can be used for outlining or reviewing text.
- Review appropriate uses of AI on Inside .
- ImageTwin uses AI to review manuscripts prior to publication for possible duplication of images.
Video (28:30)
Using ChatGPT for Literature Reviews
Video (47:27)
AI Tools for Literature Searching
Video (20:37)