Ege Academic Review recognizes the increasing use of artificial intelligence and AI-assisted tools in academic research and scholarly publishing. The journal permits the use of such tools only when they are used in accordance with transparency, human responsibility, academic integrity, confidentiality, data security, and intellectual property principles.
This policy sets out the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial board members regarding the use of artificial intelligence in all manuscripts submitted to Ege Academic Review.
AI Use by Authors
AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. Authorship requires a genuine scholarly contribution to the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and scientific content of the work. Authors are also responsible for the accuracy, originality, ethical compliance, copyright status, and integrity of the published content. AI tools cannot assume these responsibilities.
Authors who use generative AI or AI-assisted tools during manuscript preparation must disclose this use clearly. The disclosure must include the name of the tool, its version where possible, the purpose of use, the scope of use, and the stage of the manuscript preparation in which the tool was used. This statement must be included on the title page during the manuscript submission process.
AI tools may be used in a limited manner for language editing, grammar correction, clarity, translation support, or formal editing of text created by the author. Such use cannot replace the author’s scholarly contribution or academic responsibility.
If AI tools are used to support literature review, technical aspects of data organization, coding, or visual presentation, the scope of use must be clearly stated. If AI use forms part of the research method, the tool, model, version, date, workflow, prompts where applicable, validation procedure, and the scope of human oversight must be described in the methods section.
The use of AI tools to generate the central scientific arguments, theoretical contribution, research questions, hypotheses, findings, discussion, or conclusions of the manuscript is not accepted. AI tools cannot replace the author’s critical judgment, expertise, or original scholarly contribution.
Authors are responsible for checking the accuracy, sources, citations, neutrality, and ethical compliance of all content generated or modified with AI tools. Fabricated references, false DOI numbers, non-existent sources, inaccurate quotations, unverified claims, manipulated findings, or misleading data must not be included in the manuscript.
Authors must not upload personal data, participant information, interview records, unpublished datasets, confidential documents, copyrighted material, or third-party content to AI tools unless all necessary permissions and security conditions have been met.
AI tools must not be used to fabricate data, falsify data, plagiarize, generate misleading references, conceal author contribution, bypass ethics approval requirements, or manipulate the peer-review process. Such uses are considered violations of publication ethics.
AI-generated images, tables, graphs, or figures may be used only when they are necessary for the research topic, method, or presentation. In such cases, the tool used, the generation process, any editing performed, and the relevant copyright or licensing status must be clearly stated. AI-generated visuals that misleadingly represent real persons, institutions, documents, or research data are not accepted.
AI Use by Reviewers
Reviewers must treat all manuscripts assigned to them as confidential documents. Reviewers must not upload manuscript text, abstracts, tables, figures, images, datasets, supplementary files, or any information related to the review process to ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, or similar generative AI tools.
This rule also applies to public AI systems, online writing platforms, and third-party data processing tools. Uploading all or part of a manuscript file to such systems is considered a violation of confidentiality, intellectual property, and data security principles.
Reviewer reports must be based on the reviewer’s own scholarly assessment. AI tools cannot replace reviewers. Reviewers must not use AI tools to evaluate the originality, method, theoretical contribution, data use, findings, ethical compliance, or publishability of a manuscript, or to generate the substance of a review report.
Reviewers may use AI-assisted tools in a limited manner to improve the language or clarity of a review report they have written themselves, provided that no manuscript content, author information, datasets, or confidential review information is uploaded to the tool. Reviewers must disclose any such use to the editor.
If reviewers suspect undisclosed or inappropriate AI use in a manuscript, they should inform the editor. Such reports must be based on concrete observations and must not make definitive claims about the author’s intention.
AI Use by Editors and Editorial Board Members
Editors and editorial board members must treat all manuscript files, author information, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, tables and figures, datasets, and supplementary files as confidential documents.
Editors and editorial board members must not upload unpublished manuscripts, manuscript files, images, data, reviewer reports, author information, or editorial correspondence to generative AI tools. This rule also applies to the use of AI systems to summarize, rewrite, or evaluate decision letters or reviewer reports.
Editorial decisions must be based solely on the editor’s scholarly judgment, reviewer reports, journal policies, and publication ethics principles. AI tools cannot be used as decision-makers in acceptance, rejection, revision, or reviewer assignment decisions.
Editors are responsible for reviewing authors’ AI use statements. If the statement is insufficient, unclear, or inconsistent with the journal’s policy, editors may request clarification, correction, or additional documentation from the authors.
Editors may use AI-assisted tools for auxiliary tasks such as identifying potential reviewers, conducting subject-area searches, or improving the language of editorial correspondence only if no confidential manuscript content, personal data, or review-related information is shared. Such use does not remove the editor’s final responsibility. Reviewer candidates suggested through AI-assisted tools must be independently checked by the editor in terms of expertise, institutional affiliation, and potential conflicts of interest.
Procedures in Cases of Policy Violation
If AI use is not disclosed, is incompletely disclosed, or is found to violate this policy, editors may request clarification, correction, or additional documentation from the authors.
Depending on the nature of the violation, the manuscript may be rejected during the review process. If a violation is detected after publication, the journal may issue a correction, editorial note, expression of concern, or retraction.
If reviewers or editors are found to have uploaded manuscript files or review-related information to AI tools in violation of this policy, the relevant review may be considered invalid. Where necessary, a new reviewer may be appointed, the editorial process may be renewed, or the matter may be further examined by the editorial board.
Scientific, ethical, and legal responsibility for the use of AI tools rests with the individuals who use these tools.