Core Principles and Responsibilities for Authors in Using Generative AI

Transparency and Declaration:

Generative AI Usage Policies for Editors

Editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, associated files, images, or any related information to AI tools. Safeguarding the confidentiality of submitted content and protecting the intellectual property rights of authors are fundamental responsibilities of editors.

Use of AI in the Editorial Evaluation Process:

Editors may utilize AI tools in specific aspects of the editorial workflow—such as initial eligibility screening or reviewer selection—only with the explicit approval of journal management. Any such use of AI must be transparently communicated to the authors.

Management of Suspected Misuse:

In cases of uncertainty or concern regarding the use of AI, editors should engage in transparent communication with the authors and, where appropriate, request supporting evidence. Matters requiring further scrutiny should be escalated to journal management for formal review.

Evaluation of Authors’ Declarations on AI Use:

Editors are expected to carefully review authors’ statements concerning the use of AI tools and request clarification or additional information when necessary. It is the editors’ responsibility to assess whether the declared use of AI complies with the journal’s established policies.

Staying Informed on Policy Developments:

Editors should remain informed about ongoing developments in generative AI technologies and ensure they are up to date with the journal’s evolving policies on AI usage.

Generative AI Usage Policies for Reviewers

Detection of AI Use:

Reviewers are encouraged to identify any potential undisclosed use of AI within the manuscripts they assess and to notify the editors if such cases are suspected. Nonetheless, any such assessments should rely on clear, objective evaluation standards.

Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibility:

Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts or any associated documents submitted for peer review to generative AI platforms under any circumstances. Doing so could compromise confidentiality and potentially infringe on intellectual property rights.Evaluation processes should be carried out using the reviewer’s own level of expertise and knowledge.

Evaluation Ethics:

Reviewers should assess authors' use of AI impartially, ensuring that personal opinions or biases do not interfere with the journal’s established policies. Any feedback or criticism related to the use of AI should be constructive and aligned with the journal’s official guidelines.

Permitted Areas of Use

Generative AI may be employed to depict theoretical ideas, conceptual frameworks, or processes visually. Any visuals created in this manner must faithfully represent the author’s own understanding and explanations.

Data Visualization

Authors are welcome to utilize AI tools to enhance the visual presentation of their research data. These tools can be particularly helpful for improving the clarity and design of graphs, charts, and tables.

Illustrations and Representative Visuals

Restricted or Prohibited Areas of AI Use

The use of AI to generate substantial sections of a scholarly manuscript—such as the abstract, introduction, literature review, or discussion—is deemed inappropriate. AI-generated content should be treated solely as preliminary drafts or suggestions and must be thoroughly reviewed, revised, and refined by the author(s) to ensure academic rigor and originality.

Generation and Interpretation of Research Results

AI tools must not be employed to produce, report, or interpret research findings. The full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and validity of the data analysis and its interpretation lies exclusively with the author(s).

Reference Generation and Citation

The use of AI tools to generate fabricated, unverifiable, or non-existent references is strictly prohibited. All cited sources must be verifiable, accurately referenced, and approved by the author(s), in accordance with scholarly standards.

Academic Writing and Argumentation

The development of the article’s central arguments, theoretical contributions, and principal theses is the sole responsibility of the author(s). AI may serve only as a supplementary aid in the writing process and must not replace the author’s critical reasoning or original scholarly contribution.

Procedures in Case of Policy Violation

Failure to disclose the use of AI tools or using them in violation of the stated guidelines may result in the rejection of the manuscript during the review process. If a policy violation is identified after publication, corrective actions may include the retraction of the article or the issuance of a formal correction. Repeated or serious breaches of this policy may lead to the rejection of future submissions by the author(s) to the journal.