How to Proofread a LaTeX Paper in Overleaf (Without Breaking Math)

You finish drafting your NeurIPS paper at 4 a.m. and paste it into a grammar tool. Half your "errors" are LaTeX commands the tool didn't recognize. Three of your equation labels are now corrupted. The references section has been "improved" into nonsense. You revert everything and ship the paper unedited because the deadline is in six hours.

This is the default LaTeX-and-proofreader experience. General-purpose grammar tools weren't designed for source files mixed with markup. The good news: with the right workflow, AI proofreading on LaTeX is straightforward and safe. The key is knowing what to send to the proofreader and what to leave alone, how to chunk the document so context stays intact, and how to round-trip edits back into your .tex files without breaking compilation.

Why LaTeX is hard for general grammar tools

The problem is simple: most grammar tools read your text as prose. LaTeX source files are not prose. They're a mix of prose, structural commands, math expressions, citations, and references. A tool that doesn't understand the structure treats commands as words and tries to "fix" them.

Three things typically break:

Math expressions get paraphrased. Inline math like $\alpha < 0.05$ becomes "alpha less than zero point zero five" or worse, gets "simplified" into nonsense. Display math in \begin{equation}...\end{equation} blocks gets treated as a paragraph the tool wants to restructure.

Citation commands get mangled. \citep{smith2023} becomes \citep smith2023, [smith2023], or even gets "expanded" into invented author names. References silently break and your paper no longer compiles.

Structural commands get rewritten. \section{Methods} becomes \section {Methods}. \textbf{key result} becomes \\textbf{key result} after an escape-character "correction." Compile errors result, and tracking down which "fix" broke things is painful.

The fix isn't to use a special LaTeX-aware grammar tool, though those exist. The fix is to send the proofreader only the prose, keep the markup separate, and reintegrate the edits manually. This sounds tedious. It isn't — the workflow takes about 20 extra minutes per paper compared to a pure-prose document, and it's faster than fixing compilation errors after a careless paste.

What to copy and what to leave

The basic rule: copy the words; leave everything that's a command, label, citation, or math.

Copy this:

We extend prior work on neural transformer architectures by introducing
a sparse attention mechanism that scales linearly with input length.
Our experiments on the standard benchmarks show consistent improvements
over the current state-of-the-art.

Don't copy this (in the same file):

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}

\input{intro_v3}

\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}(\theta) = -\sum_{i=1}^{N} \log p_\theta(y_i | x_i)
\label{eq:loss}
\end{equation}

As shown in Equation~\ref{eq:loss}, the loss function...
\citep{vaswani2017attention,brown2020language}

The first block is prose your proofreader handles cleanly. The second block contains commands, labels, math, and cite keys — none of which the proofreader should touch.

In practice, you copy prose paragraph by paragraph (or section by section), edit it externally, then paste the edits back into the same paragraph in your .tex file. You leave the \section{}, \label{}, \input{}, equation blocks, and \citep{} calls untouched.

The chunking strategy

A 12-page LaTeX paper isn't one prose document — it's 15-20 prose chunks separated by markup. The right granularity for proofreading is sub-section sized: 200-500 words per chunk.

One section at a time is the sweet spot. Smaller chunks (one paragraph) lose cross-paragraph context — a transition that sounds fine in isolation may be wrong in context. Larger chunks (the whole paper) lose precision — the proofreader handles 500 words better than 5,000.

Methodology and results sections may need finer chunking. These tend to alternate prose with math and tables. Chunk before each equation block, after each table, between subsections. Keep prose chunks contiguous wherever possible.

Abstract and conclusion get full-document treatment. These are usually short (200-400 words) and need to read coherently as standalone pieces. Edit each as one chunk.

Captions are separate chunks. Figure and table captions should be edited individually. They're often short enough to do quickly and are commonly missed in section-level passes.

Aim for roughly 8-15 chunks for a typical conference paper, 20-30 for a journal paper, 50-100 for a thesis chapter.

Round-tripping edits back into LaTeX

The reintegration step is where most workflows break. A few habits make it safe.

Use a diff tool, not eyeballs. Paste your original prose chunk and the edited version into a diff viewer (any decent text editor has one built in; Overleaf's history feature works too). The diff highlights every change. Apply each change manually to the source file, preserving the surrounding markup.

Apply changes one paragraph at a time. Don't batch-paste a long edited section into your source. Apply it paragraph by paragraph, with a compile check after each substantial paragraph. If something breaks, you've broken one paragraph, not the whole section.

Watch for special characters. AI-edited text sometimes returns with smart quotes (curly " instead of straight "), em dashes (— instead of --), or non-breaking spaces. These can render incorrectly in LaTeX. A find-and-replace pass after editing catches them.

Re-check your \label{} and \ref{} consistency. If the proofreader subtly changed wording around a Section~\ref{sec:methods} reference, verify the reference target still makes sense in context.

Compile after every section. This sounds excessive. It isn't. A broken paper at 3 a.m. before submission is much worse than five extra compile clicks during editing.

Handling math without destroying your equations

Math is the highest-risk area. The rule is simple: never send math to a proofreader.

Inline math ($...$) stays in the source file. When you copy a paragraph for editing, replace inline math with a placeholder like [MATH1], [MATH2]. Edit the prose around the placeholders. When reintegrating, restore the original math.

A paragraph like:

We define the loss as $\mathcal{L}(\theta) = -\sum_{i=1}^{N} \log p_\theta(y_i | x_i)$, where $\theta$ are the model parameters and $N$ is the batch size.

Becomes for editing:

We define the loss as [MATH1], where [MATH2] are the model parameters
and [MATH3] is the batch size.

The proofreader edits the prose. You restore the math during reintegration.

Display math (\begin{equation}...\end{equation}) is excluded entirely. Edit the paragraphs before and after; leave the equation block untouched.

Equation references (Equation~\ref{eq:loss}) are tricky. If you've used a placeholder for inline math, also use placeholders for reference commands: as shown in [REF1]. Then restore.

Statistical expressions in prose are a special case. Something like (p < 0.001) in prose is technically math but rarely uses display syntax. If you write (p < 0.001) using the HTML entity to avoid MDX issues, that's a different problem from LaTeX. In LaTeX source, (p < 0.001) is fine; just include it in your placeholder system if you don't want the proofreader rewriting it.

Tracked changes for collaborators who don't use LaTeX

A real workflow problem: your advisor doesn't read LaTeX source. They want a Word document with tracked changes.

The standard solution is pandoc. Compile your LaTeX to a .docx file, send to your advisor, get tracked-changes back, manually apply the changes to your .tex source. This works but is slow.

The faster solution is to do the editing pass first. Paste your prose chunks into our AI proofreader and export the tracked-changes .docx for each chunk (or for the assembled prose). Send that to your advisor for review. They mark up the tracked-changes file with their own additions. You apply the combined accepted changes back to your LaTeX source.

This trades two manual integration steps for one. The first integration (proofreader edits into LaTeX) is mechanical and fast. The second integration (advisor's additions) is the same work you'd be doing anyway.

For collaborators who do read LaTeX, use latexdiff. This generates a side-by-side comparison of two .tex versions, with insertions and deletions marked up. It compiles to a PDF that shows tracked changes visually. Combined with a prose editing pass, it's the cleanest way to share changes with LaTeX-fluent collaborators.

The full workflow, compressed

Here's the sequence in 90-second summary, suitable for taping to your monitor.

1. Open your .tex file in Overleaf or your local editor.
2. For each prose chunk (typically subsection-sized, 200-500 words): a. Copy the prose. Replace inline math with placeholders. b. Paste into the proofreader. Run a Standard editing pass. c. Review the tracked changes; accept or reject each one. d. Restore math placeholders. e. Apply edits paragraph by paragraph to the .tex source. f. Compile. Verify no breakage.
3. Skip equation blocks entirely.
4. Edit captions as separate small chunks.
5. Final compile. Verify references still resolve.
6. If sending to a non-LaTeX collaborator, export tracked-changes .docx from the proofreader for the prose; send that. If sending to a LaTeX collaborator, generate a latexdiff PDF for review.

A 12-page conference paper takes about 90 minutes through this workflow. A thesis chapter takes 3-5 hours. Both are faster than fixing broken LaTeX after a naive paste-everything pass, and the editing quality is much higher.

For papers being prepared for submission, also see our journal cover letter guide — the cover letter usually needs more attention than authors give it, especially for venues where the editor's first 60 seconds decide your fate.

See the Full AI Proofreader

Tracked-changes editing for academic prose. Free tier includes every feature.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Does Overleaf have a built-in grammar checker that handles LaTeX correctly?

Overleaf bundles Writefull, which is LaTeX-aware and lives inside the Overleaf editor. The free integration is limited; the paid Writefull Premium extends it. For a comparison of Writefull and a dedicated proofreading platform, see ProofreaderPro vs Writefull. The short version: if you write primarily in LaTeX and your editing needs are language-only, Writefull's native integration is excellent. If you also need humanization, multilingual editing, or tracked-changes export for non-LaTeX collaborators, an external proofreader fits the workflow better.

Q: Will copying my paper into an external tool violate my conference's anonymization rules?

Anonymization rules apply to the version submitted to reviewers, not to your editing process. Using an editing tool on your own draft is not an anonymization violation. That said, if you're concerned about a hosted tool storing your unpublished work, check the tool's data policy. Tools that explicitly state they do not train on user inputs (like ours) are generally safe for unpublished work. For highly sensitive content (defense-related, patient-data-adjacent), some institutions require self-hosted tools — in which case open-source models you can run locally are the right choice.

Q: What about BibTeX entries? Do I need to proofread those too?

BibTeX entries are not prose and should not be sent to a proofreader. They are formatted citation records that need to match the journal's citation style requirements exactly. Use a reference manager (Zotero, BibDesk) to maintain BibTeX; check entries for accuracy against the original publication. The proofreader's job ends at the prose around your \cite{} calls; the BibTeX file itself is a different document.

Q: My paper has lots of equations. Is AI proofreading actually worth the effort?

For equation-heavy papers, the editing workflow is heavier upfront but the value is higher. The prose in a math-heavy paper often gets less attention because authors are focused on the math — which means the prose is more likely to have issues a proofreader catches. The 90-minute editing pass on a 12-page conference paper applies even to math-heavy papers; you're editing the same amount of prose either way. If your paper is genuinely 80% equations and 20% prose (rare even in theoretical work), the proofreading pass takes proportionally less time. We've never seen a math-heavy paper where careful prose editing didn't measurably improve the reader experience.