- AI is strong at catching spelling, grammar, punctuation, and formatting errors, often within seconds.
- AI is weak at spotting logic gaps, flow problems, and discipline-specific accuracy issues, and it can hallucinate content that was never in your draft.
- Combine AI with a professional human editor if English is not your native language, you are submitting to a competitive journal, or the paper matters for your graduation, job search, career advancement, or tenure.
- Editage has a bespoke set of services designed to flag and fix issues unique to AI-assisted papers.
What Can AI Proofreading Actually Catch?
AI proofreading tools reliably catch spelling errors, grammar mistakes, punctuation problems, inconsistent US and UK English style, and basic formatting issues across an entire manuscript within seconds. They flag subject-verb agreement errors, incorrect tense usage, missing articles, and awkward word choices. For non-native English speakers, this surface level cleanup alone can save hours of manual editing and catch mistakes a tired human eye might miss after several drafts.
- Spelling and typos
- Grammar: conjunctions, prepositions, and countable vs uncountable nouns
- Punctuation and capitalization
- Sentence length and readability flags
- Wordy or redundant phrasing
- Basic formatting and reference style consistency
Where AI Proofreading Falls Short
AI models process text in chunks and often lack the full context of your argument, methodology, and field specific conventions. They can smooth grammar in a paragraph while missing that the paragraph contradicts a claim made 3 pages earlier. They also struggle to judge whether your discussion section actually answers your research question, or whether your literature review logically builds toward your hypothesis and choice of methodology.
Key gaps left in the paper after AI proofreading
- Logical disconnect between sections
- Contradictions between the abstract, results, and discussion
- Weak or missing transitions between paragraphs
- Arguments that do not build toward your conclusion
- Subtle errors in field-specific terminology and conventions
- Lack of clarity about what the paper actually contributes
Can AI Introduce New Errors Into Your Paper?
Yes. AI tools can hallucinate citations, misstate numeric results while rephrasing a sentence, alter the meaning of a technical claim, or invent terminology that does not exist in your field. Because these errors are written in fluent and perfectly phrased English, they are easy to miss on a quick read. This is why every AI edit needs to be checked against your original text before you accept it.
Main errors introduced during AI proofreading
- Fabricated or altered citations
- Changed numbers, units, or statistical values
- Meaning shifts introduced during rephrasing
- Invented technical terms
- Overconfident claims not supported by your data
- Merged or dropped information from long sentences
When Do You Need a Human Editor as Well as AI Proofreading?
Add a professional human editor to your process if any of 3 conditions apply to you: English is not your native language, you are submitting to a top-tier journal, or the paper is important for your graduation, job search, career advancement, or tenure. In these cases, the cost of an overlooked flow or logic problem is higher than the cost of a human review.
When Is AI Proofreading Alone Enough?
AI proofreading alone can be sufficient if any of 4 conditions apply to you:
| Condition | Why It Works |
| Considerable publication experience | You already know how to judge flow and logic yourself, so AI just needs to catch surface slips |
| Invited submission | Invited papers typically face lighter scrutiny than open submissions to competitive journals |
| Native English-speaking co-authors already reviewed the draft | Flow and idiomatic issues have likely already been caught before AI proofreading |
| High confidence about acceptance | Lower-stakes situations do not require the added cost and time of professional editing |
Example of AI Proofreading vs Proofreading + Professional Editing
AI-Proofread Version
The findings of this study may possibly suggest that the exercise intervention could have improved physical function in older adults; however, these results should perhaps be interpreted cautiously because several other factors may also have contributed. Nevertheless, previous studies have reported similar improvements, and therefore it may be reasonable to assume that the intervention would likely be effective in most older populations. Moreover, because participants also reported greater confidence in performing daily activities, it could therefore be argued that the program improved overall quality of life. However, quality of life was not directly measured, although improved mobility is often associated with better well-being; consequently, this explanation may be valid. Furthermore, adherence was relatively high, but this nevertheless suggests that the intervention would be feasible in routine clinical practice despite the study being conducted under supervised conditions. Thus, while the evidence may indicate several possible benefits, it also appears to confirm that structured exercise programs are broadly effective.
Human-edited version
Our structured, low-impact exercise intervention resulted in meaningful improvements in physical function among older adults, supporting previous evidence that structured exercise can help maintain mobility and independence with aging. The observed gains are consistent with physiological adaptations such as increased muscle strength, improved balance, and enhanced neuromuscular coordination. Participants also reported greater confidence in performing everyday activities. This finding suggests that the functional improvements extended beyond the supervised sessions. However, our results should be interpreted in light of certain limitations: The intervention was delivered in a closely supervised setting, which may have encouraged higher adherence than would be expected in routine community programs. In addition, the relatively short follow-up period prevented assessment of whether the observed benefits were sustained over time. Future studies should evaluate longer-term outcomes and examine strategies to improve adherence in real-world settings, helping determine whether similar functional gains can be achieved across more diverse populations of older adults.
What the editor did
- Arranged sentences logically (e.g., moved the limitations to after discussing the results and not in the middle of their interpretation)
- Removed excessive hedging language (e.g., “may possibly suggest” in the first line for the key result of the study).
- Removed excessive connectors (the edited paragraph contains just one “However” and one “In addition”) whereas the AI paragraph contains unnecessary instances of “moreover”, “therefore”, etc.
In short, AI made sure that the paragraph had no grammar, punctuation, spelling, or sentence construction errors. The editor made sure that ideas were connected logically and that the key contribution of the study was easy to understand.
A Workflow for Combining AI and Human Review
If you fall into any of the 3 higher risk categories above, use this 2-stage workflow rather than relying on AI. AI handles the first pass efficiently, and a human editor catches what AI cannot see.
- Run your full draft through an AI proofreading tool for grammar, spelling, punctuation, and citation/reference style if the AI tool supports this.
- Review every AI suggested edit against your original sentence before accepting it.
- Send the AI-cleaned draft to a professional human editor for a flow, logic, and structure review. Disclose that you’ve used AI and ask the editor to flag sections that sound boilerplate or flat (what social media users term “AI slop”)
- Ask the editor to flag any section where the argument does not clearly connect to your research question.
- Revise the paper as per the editor’s suggestions and have the editor check the revised portions (many editing service providers do this for free or at a heavy discount)
Why use Editage after AI proofreading?
Editage’s expert editors don’t just duplicate the grammar checks that AI already does for you but also flag and fix issues unique to AI-assisted papers, all while preserving the scientific integrity of your work.
As part of every review, our editors:
- Refine awkward or “boilerplate” AI-generated phrasing to improve clarity and readability.
- Replace absolute or imprecise statements with language that better reflects scientific evidence.
- Ensure terminology, nomenclature, and writing conventions are appropriate for your discipline.
- Flag factual inconsistencies or unsupported claims by cross-checking information that can be independently verified.
- Review author declarations and funding statements to identify common AI-related errors before submission.
What you get: a manuscript that flows logically and conveys actual science, rather than one that is polished superficially but doesn’t convince a peer reviewer in your field.
Prompts to Use for AI Proofreading
Use specific, narrow prompts rather than a general request to improve your paper. Narrow prompts reduce the chance that AI rewrites content beyond what you asked for, and they make it easier to verify each change.
Sample Prompts
- Proofread this paragraph for grammar, spelling, and punctuation only. Do not change the meaning or add new content.
- List every change you made and explain why, so I can verify each one.
- Flag any sentence longer than 40 words and suggest a shorter alternative without changing the meaning.
How Should You Verify AI Suggested Edits?
Compare every AI edit against your original sentence, confirm that numbers, citations, and technical terms are unchanged, and check that no new claims were added before you accept any suggestion. Keep a copy of your pre-AI draft so you can run a side-by-side comparison. If you don’t understand why an edit was made, reject the change (remember that if there’s a genuine error in the text, your editor will correct it and will be happy to explain the reason behind any of their edits).
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I use ChatGPT to proofread my journal article before submission?
It’s better to use an AI tool that’s specifically trained on academic writing, like Paperpal, to proofread a journal article. ChatGPT and similar tools can proofread grammar, spelling, and punctuation effectively for general-use documents like blogposts or emails. For high-stakes submissions, add a human editor for flow and logic.
Does using AI to proofread a paper count as plagiarism?
No, using AI to fix grammar, spelling, and punctuation in your own writing is generally not considered plagiarism. It becomes a concern only if AI generates new ideas, sentences, or content that you did not write yourself. Check your target journal’s AI use policy before submitting.
Will journals reject papers that used AI for proofreading?
Most journals allow AI-assisted proofreading as long as you disclose it if required and you remain responsible for accuracy. Many now request a statement describing how AI was used. Reputable journals reject fabricated content, not legitimate grammar and language-editing assistance.
Can AI proofreading fix logical flow problems in my discussion section?
AI can flag unclear sentences and suggest smoother transitions, but it cannot reliably judge whether your discussion section logically answers your research question. That kind of structural judgment requires a human reader familiar with your field and argument.
Should non-native English speakers rely only on AI to proofread a manuscript?
Relying only on AI is risky if English is not your first language, since subtle errors and awkward phrasing can still slip through undetected. A combination of AI for a first pass and a professional human editor for a final review gives a stronger result.
How long does professional editing take for a journal manuscript?
Turnaround typically ranges from 3 to 10 business days depending on manuscript length and service, with rush options often available for an added fee (e.g., Editage can turn around a paper in as little as 8 hours). Building in at least 1 to 2 weeks before your submission deadline gives enough buffer for revisions after editing.
Is AI proofreading enough for a Scopus-indexed journal?
Pair AI proofreading with a review by a professional human editor if publishing in a Scopus-indexed journal is important for your graduation, securing a postdoc position, or your career.
Is AI proofreading enough for a Q1 journal?
No, AI proofreading should be supplemented with a review by a professional editor for logic, flow, and correct terminology if you’re submitting your article to a Q1 journal, which are usually highly competitive and rigorous.
Should I use AI or professional proofreading if my paper got negative reviewer comments on English?
The safer option is professional editing by a service that provides a widely recognized editing certificate (e.g., Editage), because usually, peer reviewers and journals recommend editing when a manuscript has clarity and flow issues, rather than when it has 1-2 typos.
Comment