ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) USAGE POLICY

As the use of generative AI tools—such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and others—continues to grow in academic writing, we encourages innovation that is responsible, transparent, and ethical. This policy outlines the journal’s official position on the use of AI by authors, reviewers, and editors, referencing best practices established by COPE, Elsevier, WAME, and JAMA. Its purpose is to uphold scientific integrity, protect manuscript confidentiality, prevent plagiarism and fabrication, and ensure human accountability for all published content.

1. Scope & Definition

• Generative AI / AI-assisted tools: Technologies that generate or modify content (text, images, code, data) based on large-scale machine learning models.
• This policy applies to all stages of the publication process: manuscript preparation, peer review, editorial decision-making, and production.

2. General Principles

• AI must not replace scientific reasoning, critical thinking, or human scholarly judgment.
• Only humans can serve as authors, reviewers, and editorial decision-makers.
• Transparency and accountability are prerequisites for any use of AI.

3. Use of AI by Authors

• AI tools may be used for supportive purposes such as improving grammar, clarity, reference formatting, content organization, and generating initial research ideas.
• AI must not be used to replace substantive scholarly contributions (e.g., interpreting findings without expert oversight or generating the majority of a manuscript).
• AI cannot be credited as an author since it lacks accountability and the ability to consent; all listed authors must be human individuals who meet authorship criteria.
• Authors remain fully responsible for (a) scientific accuracy, (b) originality, (c) absence of plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification, and (d) verifying references (avoiding “hallucinated references”).
• Privacy & Intellectual Property (IP): Before inputting data into AI tools, authors must ensure the tool’s terms of service do not grant training rights over their material, maintain confidentiality (especially for personal or ethical data), and do not impose restrictions on future publication.

4. Disclosure of AI Use

Authors must openly disclose any use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies during the manuscript writing or preparation process. This disclosure represents an essential form of academic transparency that ensures each component of the manuscript can be traced, verified, and attributed to appropriate human oversight. Therefore, any author who uses AI—whether for writing assistance, editing, translation, or data analysis—must explicitly indicate such use in the Declarations section (if AI supported writing or editing) or in the Methods section (if AI was part of the research design or methodology).

In this disclosure, authors must specify the AI tool or platform used, its version or release number, the date and time of use (if applicable), the purpose of its application, and the extent of human supervision. This transparency allows readers and editors to understand the context of AI involvement and the level of scientific control exercised by the author. Examples of disclosure statements (modifiable):

• “The author(s) used OpenAI ChatGPT (version XX, accessed DD-MM-YYYY) to edit the language of the Introduction section; all outputs were reviewed and verified by the authors.”
• If AI was used for analysis, coding, or figure generation as part of the research methods, authors should describe the procedures in a reproducible manner, including the tool’s name, version or extension, parameters, workflow, and quality control processes.

Basic proofreading or spell-checking that does not alter the manuscript’s substance does not require disclosure. However, failure to disclose substantive AI use may be considered a breach of publication ethics and could result in manuscript rejection, correction requests, or even article retraction, depending on the severity of the violation.

5. Figures, Illustrations, and Visual Materials

Creating or modifying figures using generative AI (e.g., adding, deleting, or obscuring features) is not permitted unless AI is an explicit component of the research methodology (e.g., AI-assisted imaging). Such cases must be described in detail, including the tool, version, manufacturer, and pre-AI evidence (raw/composite data) if requested. Non-substantive adjustments (brightness, contrast, color balance) are acceptable as long as they do not conceal or distort information.

6. Data, Analytics, and AI-Assisted Code

• When AI is used for data analysis, table or figure generation, or code writing, authors must describe these processes in detail in the Methods section (including prompts or scripts, date, tool version) to ensure reproducibility and scientific auditability.
• Authors are responsible for the methodological validity and the accuracy of references underlying AI-generated outputs.

7. Use of AI by Reviewers (Confidentiality & Integrity)

• Reviewers are prohibited from uploading manuscripts (or portions thereof) to public AI platforms, as doing so may violate author confidentiality and data rights.
• Reviewers must not use AI to generate the substantive content of their review, since peer evaluation requires critical human judgment.
• For non-content tasks (e.g., improving review language), reviewers must ensure no confidential manuscript information is shared and disclose such use to the editor when relevant.

8. Use of AI by Editors and Editorial Staff

• AI may be used for non-decision-making tasks such as plagiarism detection, formatting checks, and language moderation.
• Acceptance or rejection decisions must only be made by human editors.
• Manuscript content and editorial correspondence are confidential and must not be uploaded to public AI tools.

9. Ethics, Bias, and Risk Mitigation

All parties are responsible for assessing potential bias, misrepresentation, or offensive content arising from AI outputs. Authors are encouraged to triangulate sources, ensure citation balance (including counterviews), and adhere to ethical standards, including obtaining proper permissions for data and images.

10. Violations and Consequences

All cases will be handled in accordance with COPE guidelines on publication ethics. Violations—such as data or reference fabrication using AI, nondisclosure of AI use, or excessive AI reliance without human oversight—may result in:

• Rejection of the manuscript,
• Requests for revision or correction,
• Post-publication retraction, or
• Notification of the author’s affiliated institution if necessary.

11. Policy Review

This policy will be reviewed periodically to reflect technological advancements, evolving ethical standards, and best practices in academic publishing.

12. References

1. Elsevier (2023). Generative AI Policies for Journals. Retrieved from: https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/generative-ai-policies-for-journals
2. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (2023). Position Statement on Authorship and AI Tools. Retrieved from: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools
3. Chatbots, Generative AI, and Scholarly Manuscripts (2023). Retrieve from: https://wame.org/page3.php?id=106
4. Nonhuman “Authors” and Implications for the Integrity of Scientific Publication and Medical Knowledge (2023). Retrieve: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801170
5. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (2023). Discussion Paper: Ethical Considerations in the Use of Generative AI in Publishing. Retrieved from: https://publicationethics.org/topic-discussions/artificial-intelligence-ai-and-fake-papers