Legal

AI Transparency & Limitations

Version 2.0
Effective Date: September 1, 2026

Our Commitment

At SubmissionClarity, we believe artificial intelligence should assist researchers—not replace them.

We also believe that transparency is essential. You deserve to understand what our technology does, what it does not do, and where its limitations lie.

This document explains how SubmissionClarity uses artificial intelligence (“AI”), the strengths and limitations of AI-assisted grant review, and your responsibilities when using the Service.

Why SubmissionClarity Uses AI

Writing a competitive grant submission is challenging. Strong applications require not only excellent science but also clear organization, persuasive presentation, logical structure, and effective communication.

SubmissionClarity uses AI to help identify opportunities to improve those aspects of a proposal.

Our goal is to provide researchers with thoughtful editorial feedback that can strengthen the presentation of their work.

AI allows us to provide detailed reviews much more quickly—and at lower cost—than would otherwise be possible.

What SubmissionClarity Evaluates

Depending upon the review selected, SubmissionClarity may evaluate:

• Overall organization
• Clarity of writing
• Logical flow
• Persuasiveness
• Alignment with published SubmissionClarity review criteria
• Internal consistency
• Sentence-level clarity
• Readability
• Redundancy
• Structural weaknesses
• Opportunities for revision
• General editorial quality

These evaluations are intended to help authors improve the communication of their research.

What SubmissionClarity Does Not Evaluate

SubmissionClarity is not a scientific reviewer.

The Service does not determine:

• Whether your science is correct
• Whether your hypotheses are valid
• Whether your experiments are feasible
• Whether your preliminary data are sufficient
• Whether reviewers will agree with your scientific approach
• Whether your application complies with every sponsor requirement
• Whether your application should be funded

Only human reviewers and funding organizations can make funding decisions.

AI Is Not Human

Artificial intelligence does not think like a human reviewer.

It recognizes patterns in language and generates responses based upon statistical relationships learned during training. Some patterns are inherent in AI’s own training. As a result, AI can produce analyses that appear thoughtful while still containing mistakes.

At the same time, other patterns and rhetorical principles have been developed and applied by the creator of SubmissionClarity based on reviewing dozens of actual grant submissions over nearly two decades of workshops and one-on-one guidance.

Although SubmissionClarity is carefully designed and aims to be continually refined, AI remains an evolving technology with inherent limitations.

AI Can Be Wrong

AI-generated feedback may contain:

• factual errors
• misunderstandings
• omissions
• inaccurate recommendations
• incorrect assumptions
• misleading conclusions
• recommendations not appropriate for your particular application

Every suggestion should be reviewed using your own professional judgment before you decide whether to incorporate it into your proposal.

Different Reviews May Produce Different Results

Artificial intelligence is probabilistic, not deterministic.

This means that:

• the same proposal reviewed twice may receive different comments
• different AI models may produce different recommendations
• recommendations may change as AI technology evolves
• two equally reasonable analyses may disagree.

Differences between reviews do not necessarily mean that one review is “correct” and another is “incorrect.”

Grant writing often involves judgment calls where multiple reasonable approaches exist.

AI Does Not Guarantee Funding

Neither an artificial intelligence system, nor a detailed in-person human review, can predict whether a grant application will be funded.

Funding decisions depend upon many factors outside the scope of this application, including:

• scientific significance
• innovation
• methodological rigor
• investigator qualifications
• institutional environment
• available funding
• program priorities
• reviewer judgment
• competing applications
• changing SubmissionClarity approaches

Accordingly, SubmissionClarity cannot guarantee:

• improved impact scores
• favorable peer review
• funding success
• any other outcome not specifically mentioned.

Using every recommendation generated by SubmissionClarity does not guarantee a successful application.

Conversely, choosing not to follow SubmissionClarity’s recommendations does not imply that your application will be weaker.

SubmissionClarity Policies May Change

Policies regarding the use of artificial intelligence in grant preparation continue to evolve.

SubmissionClarity does not determine whether your use of AI complies with:

• institutional policy
• sponsor requirements
• journal policies
• other applicable rules.

You remain solely responsible for ensuring that your use of SubmissionClarity complies with all applicable requirements in effect at the time you prepare and submit your application.

You Remain the Author

You remain the sole author and owner of your grant application.

You are responsible for:

• every statement
• every scientific claim
• every citation
• every figure
• every budget justification
• every research plan
• every revision incorporated into your application

SubmissionClarity provides recommendations.

You decide whether to accept them.

Human Judgment Always Comes First

SubmissionClarity is intended to supplement—not replace—the judgment of:

• investigators
• mentors
• collaborators
• departmental reviewers
• institutional grants offices
• human editors/technical writers
• any other set of experienced professionals

If AI-generated recommendations conflict with your scientific expertise or the advice of trusted colleagues, you should carefully evaluate both before making revisions.

Professional judgment should always take precedence over automated recommendations.

Continuous Improvement

We intend to continually evaluate and improve SubmissionClarity.

As AI technology advances, we may:

• improve review quality
• reduce errors
• add new review capabilities
• revise existing analyses
• update evaluation criteria
• incorporate improved AI models
• refine our review methodology

Because of these ongoing improvements, reviews of the same submission generated at different times may not be identical.

Our Philosophy

We believe researchers deserve honesty about artificial intelligence.

We will never claim that AI is perfect.

We will never claim that AI can predict funding decisions.

We will never claim that AI should replace scientific expertise.

Instead, we believe AI is most valuable when it serves as a thoughtful and time-saving editorial assistant—one that helps experienced researchers communicate their ideas more clearly while leaving final decisions where they belong: with the investigator.

Final Note

Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool, but it is only one tool.

The strongest grant applications result from the combination of excellent science, careful writing, experienced mentorship, critical review, institutional support, and thoughtful revision.

SubmissionClarity is designed to contribute to that process—not to replace it.

End of AI Transparency & Limitations