AI Policy

ChatGPT and Generative AI Policy

Policy on the Use of ChatGPT and Generative AI Based on COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)

1. Use of Large Language Models and Generative AI Tools in Manuscript Preparation

The journal acknowledges the potential benefits of large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, and other generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools in supporting scholarly writing and manuscript preparation. These tools may assist authors with idea generation, content organization, summarization, language refinement, translation, and improving the clarity and readability of manuscripts.

However, AI tools have limitations and cannot replace human expertise, critical thinking, originality, or scientific judgment. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and ethical compliance of all content submitted for publication.

Authors should be aware of the following limitations when using LLMs and generative AI tools:

  1. Bias and Fairness: AI-generated content may contain biases or reflect underrepresented perspectives in the training data. Authors must critically evaluate generated content to ensure fairness, inclusivity, and appropriate representation.

  2. Accuracy and Reliability: AI tools may generate inaccurate, misleading, or fabricated information, including false facts, unsupported claims, and nonexistent or incorrect references.

  3. Contextual Understanding: AI tools may misinterpret specialized terminology, cultural contexts, idiomatic expressions, or nuanced scientific arguments.

  4. Limitations of Training Data: AI-generated responses may be limited by the quality, scope, and currency of their training data and may not reflect the latest scientific developments.

  5. Originality and Plagiarism: AI-generated text may unintentionally reproduce or closely resemble existing published material. Authors must ensure that their manuscripts meet applicable standards of originality and avoid plagiarism.

2. Author Responsibilities

Authors who use AI tools beyond basic spelling, grammar, and reference-checking functions must:

  1. Disclose AI Use: Clearly disclose the use of AI tools in manuscript preparation, identifying the specific tool or service and its purpose.

  2. Verify Accuracy: Review and verify all AI-generated content, including factual statements, data interpretations, arguments, and references, against reliable original sources.

  3. Maintain Academic Integrity: Ensure that the manuscript represents a genuine scholarly contribution and complies with the journal's requirements concerning originality, research ethics, and publication integrity.

  4. Protect Confidentiality: Avoid entering confidential manuscripts, unpublished research data, personal information, or other sensitive materials into AI tools that may compromise confidentiality, privacy, or intellectual property rights.

  5. Retain Human Oversight: Exercise independent scholarly judgment and make all final decisions regarding the content, interpretation, and conclusions of the manuscript.

  6. Take Responsibility: Accept full responsibility for the entire manuscript, including any content generated or modified with the assistance of AI tools.

3. AI Disclosure Statement

When AI tools have been used substantively in preparing a manuscript, authors must include a declaration at the end of the main manuscript file, before the References section, under the heading:

AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Declaration in the Writing Process

Authors may use the following template:

"During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [NAME OF TOOL/SERVICE] for [PURPOSE]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as necessary and take full responsibility for the content of the published article."

Authors should describe the actual use of AI tools accurately and specifically. If multiple tools were used for different purposes, each tool and its corresponding purpose should be identified.

This declaration is generally not required for basic spelling, grammar, and reference-checking tools that do not generate substantive content. If no AI tools requiring disclosure were used, no declaration is necessary.

4. AI Tools and Authorship

AI tools, including ChatGPT and other LLMs, cannot be listed as authors or co-authors of submitted manuscripts. Authorship is reserved for individuals who can meet the applicable authorship criteria, participate in scholarly decision-making, and accept responsibility for the integrity of the work.

Authors must ensure that the use of AI tools does not undermine the transparency, accountability, or originality of their scholarly contributions.

5. Responsibilities of Editors and Reviewers

Editors and reviewers must uphold confidentiality, impartiality, and publication ethics when dealing with manuscripts that may involve AI-generated content.

They should:

  1. Evaluate the appropriateness of AI use where relevant to the manuscript's scholarly integrity.

  2. Assess concerns regarding accuracy, originality, fabricated references, and potential plagiarism.

  3. Avoid uploading confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, or identifiable information into AI tools that are not authorized for such use.

  4. Disclose their own substantive use of AI tools when required by the journal's applicable policies.

  5. Make editorial and peer-review decisions based on independent professional judgment rather than relying solely on AI-generated assessments.

Editors and reviewers must not use AI tools in ways that compromise manuscript confidentiality, reviewer independence, or the integrity of the peer-review process.

6. Undisclosed or Inappropriate Use of AI

If undisclosed or inappropriate AI use is identified during submission, peer review, or after publication, the journal may investigate the matter in accordance with its publication ethics procedures.

Depending on the circumstances and applicable policies, corrective measures may include requesting clarification or manuscript revisions, rejecting a submission, issuing a correction, publishing an expression of concern, or retracting a published article.

Any action will be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the nature and severity of the issue and relevant publication ethics guidance.

7. Compliance with Publication Ethics Standards

This policy is informed by the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other relevant scholarly publishing guidance. It should be read alongside the journal's author guidelines, editorial policies, research ethics requirements, and applicable publisher policies.

For further information, authors, editors, and reviewers may consult:

8. Policy Updates

This policy may be revised periodically to reflect developments in generative AI technologies, scholarly publishing practices, and publication ethics standards. Authors, editors, reviewers, and readers are encouraged to consult the journal's website for the latest version of this policy.