Our judging process is robust. Each story is assessed through a thorough process which involves multiple rounds of readers before progressing to the final judging panel. We select our judges for their expertise, passion for the literary community and strong backgrounds in writing.  

We do not currently use AI checkers in our judging process because this is a Prize for unpublished fiction. To supply unpublished original work to an AI checker would raise significant concerns surrounding consent and artistic ownership. We also do not use AI to judge stories at any stage of the process. 

When they submit stories to the Prize, writers accept our entry rules and guidelines. These include confirming that their submission is their own original work. All shortlisted writers have personally stated that no AI was used and, upon further consultation, the Foundation has confirmed this. We place our confidence in the integrity of our contributors and the calibre and experience of the judges and Chair of the Judging panel, and stand by the assurances given by our authors as part of our process. While we acknowledge there are a growing number of tools that purport to detect the use of generative AI in stories, we note that these tools are not unfailing or infallible.  We therefore believe it is important to acknowledge and uphold the trust we hold with our writers. Unlike AI tools, they can provide background to the crafting of their stories, and the inspiration and motivations behind their work. 

Until a sufficient tool or process to reliably detect the use of AI emerges that can also grapple with the challenges pertaining to working with unpublished fiction, the Foundation and the Commonwealth Short Story Prize must operate on the principle of trust. 

The use of generative AI, and its rapid evolution, poses significant challenges for literary, and indeed all creative work. We must all work together to navigate these wider emerging challenges whilst protecting the integrity of not just the entrants to our Prize but all creative endeavours – and most importantly, that we continue to support different voices and narratives from both established and emerging writers across the Commonwealth.’