Dear Editor, Artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools are commonly used to help edit and improve scientific manuscripts. However, most are too expensive for routine use. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a widely accessible general-purpose AI, allows users to create customized versions—called GPTs (Generative Pre-trained Transformers)—tailored for specific tasks. Through the GPT builder in the ChatGPT interface, users can provide plain-language instructions and domain knowledge to develop personalized chatbots that serve diverse functions, including scientific editing. Although AI tools such as ChatGPT are increasingly used for manuscript editing, their output quality varies greatly, especially without structured prompts. To address this, we developed a customized GPT—Paper Polish—using the ChatGPT platform. This tool helps authors improve conciseness, clarity, and completeness of manuscripts and screens submissions against established reporting standards. It is expected to particularly benefit researchers from low-resource settings. HOW WE DEVELOPED IT The development of Paper Polish was grounded both on literature review and our practical experience as authors, reviewers, and journal editors. Over the years, we have published several articles on drafting various sections of scientific papers,1–13 and on the use of concise language in academic writing.14 To build a reliable editorial assistant, we uploaded these articles into the GPT and instructed it to extract relevant writing rules. ChatGPT identified 325 rules summarizing writing guidance Table 1 for sample: title (n = 25), abstract (n = 25), introduction (n = 25), aims/objectives/research questions/hypotheses (n = 25), methods (n = 30), ethical considerations (n = 20), sample size estimation (n = 20), statistical analysis (n = 25), tables (n = 20), figures and illustrations (n = 20), results (n = 15), discussion (n = 25), acknowledgements (n = 5), references and citations (n = 20), and concise writing (n = 25). We verified the relevance and comprehensiveness of the extracted rules.Table 1: Rules for GPT-based manuscript screening (sample only)Beyond improving writing quality, we wanted the tool to help authors ensure complete and transparent reporting. Therefore, we integrated guidance from the Equator Network (http://equator-network.org/), which provides reporting checklists for different study types (e.g., CONSORT, STROBE). The GPT was instructed to detect study design by analyzing the manuscript’s title, abstract, and methods, and to justify its classification by quoting relevant text. If the tool could not confidently determine the study type, it would prompt the user to choose from likely options. For non-research articles such as editorials or commentaries, the GPT indicates that a checklist is not applicable, and instead focuses on clarity and conciseness. To enhance usability, we created four initial conversation starters that appear on the GPT’s homepage: “Check clarity, completeness, and conciseness,” “Compare against STROBE items,” “Help make this abstract better,” and “Help improve this case report.” These starter prompts are dynamic—once the GPT detects the study type, they automatically adjust (for instance, “Compare against STROBE items” becomes “Compare against CONSORT items” for randomized trials). We also made deliberate choices about the GPT’s capabilities. Web search and Canvas (which allows side-by-side editing with the chat) were enabled to enhance user control and interactivity, while image generation, code interpretation, and data analysis were disabled to maintain focus on writing improvement. A detailed set of instructions was provided to guide the GPT’s behavior, including: Preserve meaning, academic tone, and all factual claims, numbers, and results. Rate all articles on: Clarity (1–5), Redundancy (1–5), Wordiness/Modifiers (1–5), and Structure and Flow (1–5). Specify if the tool’s suggestion succeeded in preserving the author’s intended meaning (Pass/Fail). Mention which rules the article did not follow, with a 1–2 sentence rationale. Provide a Reporting Completeness score (0%–100%) reflecting the proportion of relevant checklist items present. For each missing or partial item, give: the checklist item number and short text (quoted), where it should appear (e.g., Methods—Participants, Case Description—Clinical Findings), a 1–2 sentence explanation of why it matters, and a suggested concise sentence or short paragraph for the author to adapt. To reduce hallucinations, we implemented strict safeguards: Do not add new facts or results. Do not invent data; if data are required and missing, indicate that the author must supply them. Do not perform live web searches during checklist comparison. When asking a question, do not answer it; present suggested answers for the user to confirm. We pre-tested the tool on early drafts of our previously published articles, and the outcomes were satisfactory in both language quality and checklist completeness. HOW TO USE IT Paper Polish is accessible through ChatGPT at https://chatgpt.com/g/g-68cf72fa727481919ae358934d7d2172-paper-polish. Users can begin by selecting one of four suggested conversation starters, such as “Compare against STROBE items.” These serve as entry points for the tool to analyze and improve manuscripts. Once Paper Polish identifies the study type, the prompts automatically update to offer relevant checklist comparisons. Authors may paste text or upload Word or PDF files. All edits and feedback are presented transparently, in a structured format with minimal jargon, and a clear focus on actionable advice Supplementary Material for Sample Report. Free-tier ChatGPT users can analyze one manuscript per day with this tool, but should note message and usage limits that may restrict long, or highly interactive sessions. To stay within these limits, users should upload a single article at a time and request a complete evaluation in one session rather than multiple iterative queries. It is important to note that Paper Polish is a writing assistant—not a fact-checker or replacement for peer review. It will not fabricate information or results. When necessary, information is missing, the GPT highlights the gap and prompts the author to fill it. Authors should always verify revisions to ensure consistency with field-specific conventions, accuracy of reporting, and adherence to citation standards. The final message from the tool always reminds users: “Authors remain responsible for content accuracy, citations, and style.” Authors are also advised to follow their target journal’s policy on AI-assisted writing. If a journal prohibits generative-AI use for manuscript content, this tool should not be employed for those submissions. Authors implementing its instructions should acknowledge its role in the “Declaration regarding the use of generative AI” section. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: SAMPLE REPORTFinancial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.
Ameen et al. (Sun,) studied this question.