Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence

Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence

We recognise the growing role of artificial intelligence in academic research and writing. We consider these tools to be valuable resources that can help researchers explore ideas, accelerate discovery, analyse results, refine language, and organise manuscripts more efficiently. Although generative AI tools can significantly improve the research workflow, they cannot replace human creativity, sound judgement or critical thinking. Our AI policy aims to help authors, reviewers and editors to make informed and ethical decisions when using these technologies

For authors

AI is a supportive tool. We recognise that many authors now use AI tools to enhance their writing. These tools can assist with grammar, style, clarity, proofreading and structure. However, authors remain fully responsible for ensuring the accuracy, originality and integrity of their research

Use of generative AI

If any part of the submitted research was generated by an AI tool — for example, if text was drafted, references were created, or images were produced — this must be explicitly disclosed. To ensure scientific accuracy and objectivity, authors should cite verifiable original sources rather than referencing the AI tool itself. If the majority of the manuscript was generated using AI, this must be indicated at the time of submission, to enable the editorial team to consider the implications

Authors who use AI in this way must:

- Specify the AI tool or model used and its purpose. They must also carefully verify all AI-generated content to ensure its factual accuracy and the correctness of the citations used.

-They must also ensure that the content is free from any potential biases or errors.

-They must compare the generated content with the original sources to ensure there is no plagiarism.

- Avoid fabricated citations or information and verify the validity of every claim before submission.

-AI tools such as ChatGPT should not be listed in the authorship section.

While the use of AI is not grounds for automatic rejection, failure to disclose its use or irresponsible use (e.g. submitting fabricated or copied content) may result in rejection at any stage of the editorial process

For reviewers and editors:

Using AI tools for editorial work can raise concerns about confidentiality and intellectual property. Many scholarly journals rely on user submissions and may therefore unintentionally reuse confidential content

AI assistance for reviewers:

Reviewers can use AI to improve the clarity and structure of their reviews. However, they remain responsible for ensuring the accuracy, substance, and originality of the content

For editors:

Editors are responsible for the integrity of the journal’s content. They can use AI tools to assist with administrative tasks, such as identifying potential reviewers. However, they must not use AI tools such as ChatGPT to draft editorial decisions or abstracts of unpublished works

Inappropriate or undisclosed use of AI If any reviewer or editor suspects the inappropriate or undisclosed use of AI in any research or review, they must report it to the editorial team. The journal, in collaboration with the editorial board, will investigate these concerns in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and the journal's own internal policies