AI guidance for reviewers - FIANLLY!
Hello hellooo!
You’ve probably seen of “AI guidance for scientists” but have you heard of the “AI guidance for grant proposal evaluators”?!
The European Research Council, the largest European funding agency with € 17 billion budget, has FINALLY released “The use of AI in grant proposal evaluation” guidelines for ERC panel members and remote reviewers.
**TL;DR -**Your proposals will be read by humans. AI use in the review process is extremely limited — essentially, reviewers can use it to improve the clarity of their written feedback. That’s it.
Here’s the summary of the do’s & don’ts for you:
✅ Language and grammar polishing, provided no proposal content is shared with the AI tool, and the reviewer’s own arguments and judgement drive the content entirely.
✅ Searching for general information on a proposal’s topic using AI tools (as long as the proposal itself isn’t uploaded).
❌ Using AI to summarise a proposal, even on a local server. Understanding the proposal in full is a core reviewer task — it cannot be delegated.
❌ Using AI to assess scientific merit or novelty, regardless of data privacy settings. Forming scientific judgement is a human responsibility.
❌ Generating a draft review, even if the reviewer edits it afterwards. Drafting involves evaluative judgement — that’s the line.
❌ Asking AI to check whether a review is “missing important points.” Determining what matters in a review is itself part of the evaluator’s job.
❌ Uploading any part of a proposal to an online tool — ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini — regardless of intent. This breaches confidentiality and data protection rules.
Why this matters for you
Your proposal will be read by a human. A human who has now been formally reminded that they are responsible for their own assessment — fully, independently, and from the page alone.
That raises the bar on clarity. A panel member working without AI assistance needs to grasp your research vision quickly and independently. The science has to land on its own terms. Clear, precise scientific communication is not a nice-to-have. It is what makes your proposal reviewable.
These guidelines will evolve. But having formal, published guidance for evaluators — not just applicants — is a meaningful step forward for transparency in the funding process.
Speaking of which — do you actually know which AI tools you’re allowed to use at work, and for what? It’s worth checking with your IT department or a colleague who’s looked into this. And if you can’t find the answers then it’s about time to raise a red flag to your executive team.
Cheers,
Pranoti
PS: If, apart from my email, you also like some proposal writing support, I think you’ll be happy about:
- SciComm Support at Proposal Writing Stage where Iwork with principal investigators who want professional science communication that matches the ambition and budget of their grant proposal. More details are on my website.
- ERC Synergy Guidance — 14th April, 14:00. I’ll share some of my secrets about fleshing out a winning outreach work package in your proposal. Save your spot!
- Some of my recent posts👇
NotebookLM Cinematic Video Overviews: What’s new and is it worth it?
Google just upgraded NotebookLM’s video feature. Cinematic Video Overviews use Gemini, Imagen, and Veo to generate animated explainer videos from your sources — no blank canvas needed. Here’s what changed and what still needs work.
ERC Guidelines on AI in Grant Proposal Evaluation: What Reviewers (and Applicants) Need to Know
The ERC has published official guidelines on AI use in grant evaluation. Here’s what reviewers must follow—and what it means for how you write your proposal.
16 European Research Funding Calls Open in 2026
16 open European research funding calls in 2026 — ERC, EIC, NWO, UKRI, NNF, and Villum Fonden. Deadlines, budgets, and eligibility at a glance.