Generative AI Policy

Human authorship and accountability

Generative AI tools, chatbots, and large language models cannot be listed as authors because they cannot approve a submission, accept accountability, or manage copyright and conflicts. Human authors remain fully responsible for all content, including AI-assisted text, images, code, analyses, and references.

Authors must verify facts, citations, originality, permissions, and possible bias. AI-generated references must never be cited without checking that the source exists and supports the claim.

Disclosure of AI use

At submission, disclose substantive generative AI use in the manuscript and to the editorial office. Identify the provider and tool, model or version where known, purpose, affected parts of the work, extent of use, and the human verification performed. Describe research or analytical use in Methods; describe writing assistance in an acknowledgements or AI-use statement.

Routine non-generative spelling and grammar checks do not require an AI-use statement. Language generation, substantial rewriting, translation, coding, analysis, and image generation do require disclosure. Keep review copies anonymized; editorial staff manage any disclosure details that would reveal identity.

Suggested statement: “During preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [tool/provider and model/version] for [purpose and affected sections]. The authors reviewed and verified the output and take full responsibility for the final content.”

AI-assisted research and prohibited fabrication

AI may be part of a legitimate research method when its role, inputs, validation, limitations, and relevant reproducibility information are transparently reported. Clearly distinguish generated or simulated material from observations of real participants or events.

AI must not fabricate empirical data, participants, quotations, references, or evidence, or alter research images to misrepresent findings. Disclosing a tool does not make an unethical use acceptable. Authors remain responsible for privacy, intellectual property, and consent when providing inputs to an AI service.

Reviewer and editor confidentiality

Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts, anonymized drafts, reports, personal data, or other confidential editorial material to public or external generative AI services. Anonymization alone does not authorize disclosure.

Reviewers must perform their own scholarly assessment and must not delegate the review or generation of their report to AI. Editors must not delegate acceptance, rejection, or other academic decisions to AI; final responsibility remains with the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor handling a conflict.

Assessment and consequences

Editors may request clarification, supporting records, or a revised AI-use statement. Suspected undisclosed use or fabricated content is investigated under the misconduct procedures, giving authors an opportunity to respond. Possible outcomes include correction, rejection, an expression of concern, or retraction according to the evidence.

AI-detection scores alone are not proof of misconduct and do not replace evidence-based editorial assessment. Declared responsible AI assistance does not by itself establish misconduct or guarantee acceptance.