Artificial Intelligence (AI) Usage Policy

1. Purpose and Scope

This policy governs the use of artificial intelligence (AI), generative artificial intelligence, large language models, chatbots, and other AI-assisted technologies in manuscripts submitted to this journal.

It applies to authors, reviewers, editors, editorial board members, and other parties involved in manuscript submission, peer review, editorial decision-making, and publication.

The journal supports the responsible use of AI to enhance research and scholarly communication. However, AI must remain an assistive tool. Human authors, reviewers, and editors remain responsible for verification, professional judgment, decision-making, and accountability.

2. AI Tools Cannot Be Authors

AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors.

AI cannot meet the requirements for authorship because it cannot:

  • take responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of a work;
  • approve the final version of a manuscript;
  • declare conflicts of interest;
  • enter into publishing agreements;
  • hold copyright; or
  • respond to questions concerning the published work.

All named authors must be human and must meet the authorship criteria adopted by the journal.

3. Permitted Use of AI by Authors

Authors may use AI-assisted technologies for legitimate supporting activities, including:

  • generating preliminary ideas or keywords;
  • assisting with literature discovery;
  • developing an initial outline;
  • improving spelling, grammar, or readability;
  • translating text;
  • assisting with coding or data analysis;
  • creating visualisations;
  • summarising information for further human evaluation; and
  • preparing an initial draft that is subsequently critically reviewed and substantially revised by the authors.

The use of AI does not reduce the authors' responsibility for the submitted manuscript.

Authors must independently verify all AI-assisted content, including facts, arguments, quotations, statistics, references, DOI numbers, URLs, legal provisions, research data, code, images, and conclusions.

AI-generated output must not be treated as a primary or authoritative source when the original source is available.

4. AI Uses Requiring Disclosure

Authors must disclose the use of AI when the technology materially contributes to:

  • developing the research question or study design;
  • conducting a literature search or systematic review;
  • producing or substantially rewriting manuscript content;
  • translating substantial portions of the manuscript;
  • generating or modifying code;
  • analysing or interpreting research data;
  • creating synthetic data;
  • producing or modifying figures, images, audio, or video;
  • generating research instruments; or
  • performing any other activity that may affect the scientific content or interpretation of the work.

Basic spelling, grammar, and formatting assistance that does not alter the scientific substance of the manuscript does not normally require disclosure.

When uncertain, authors are encouraged to disclose the use of the AI tool.

5. Declaration of AI Use

When disclosure is required, the declaration must state:

  • the name of the AI tool and its provider;
  • the version used or date of access;
  • the purpose for which the tool was used;
  • the section or stage of the work in which it was used;
  • the type of information processed; and
  • the steps taken by the authors to verify the output.

The declaration should appear in a separate section entitled Declaration of AI Use, placed before the References.

Example Declaration

“During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [name and version of AI tool] for [specific purpose] in [section or stage of the research]. The authors reviewed, verified, and revised all outputs generated by the tool. The authors take full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and content of the published article.”

When AI forms part of the research method, its use must also be described in the Methods section in sufficient detail to allow scientific evaluation and, where possible, reproducibility.

6. Prohibited Uses of AI

Authors must not use AI to:

  • fabricate, falsify, or manipulate research data or results;
  • create false references, quotations, DOI numbers, legal provisions, or research findings;
  • conceal plagiarism or inappropriate text reuse;
  • misrepresent AI-generated content as independently created human work;
  • generate a complete manuscript without meaningful intellectual contribution from the authors;
  • manipulate images in a misleading manner;
  • impersonate another person;
  • create false reviewer identities or manipulate the peer-review process;
  • submit confidential or restricted material to an unauthorised AI service; or
  • provide false or misleading information regarding the use of AI.

Such conduct may be treated as a breach of publication ethics.

7. References and Citations

Authors are responsible for accessing, reading, and verifying every source cited in the manuscript.

AI-generated references must not be included unless the authors have confirmed that:

  • the source exists;
  • the bibliographic information is accurate;
  • the cited source supports the relevant claim; and
  • the authors have accessed and evaluated the original source.

An AI tool must not be cited as an author.

If AI-generated output is itself the object of research, the authors must explain how the output was generated, documented, and analysed.

8. Images, Figures, and Synthetic Data

AI-generated or AI-modified images, figures, audio, video, and synthetic data may only be used when they are scientifically relevant, ethically justified, and clearly disclosed.

Authors must:

  • clearly label AI-generated or AI-modified material;
  • explain how the material was produced;
  • identify the AI tool used;
  • verify that its use does not infringe copyright or other rights;
  • clearly distinguish synthetic data from empirical data; and
  • ensure that the material does not mislead readers.

AI must not be used to alter research images or data in a manner that changes, obscures, removes, or fabricates scientific information.

The editor may request original files, metadata, prompts, code, or other supporting records when necessary.

9. Privacy, Confidentiality, and Data Protection

Authors must not upload personal data, sensitive data, confidential documents, unpublished manuscripts belonging to other parties, patient or client information, restricted research data, or other protected materials to public AI platforms without an appropriate legal basis, authorisation, and adequate security safeguards.

Before using an AI service, authors should examine:

  • whether submitted information is retained;
  • whether the information may be used to train the AI model;
  • who may access the submitted information;
  • where the information is processed;
  • whether the information may be transferred to another party; and
  • whether the information can be deleted.

The use of AI must comply with applicable research ethics requirements, data-protection laws, confidentiality obligations, and institutional policies.

10. Use of AI by Peer Reviewers

Submitted manuscripts and peer-review materials are confidential.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, supplementary files, author information, or editorial communications to an external AI service unless the journal has expressly authorised the service and appropriate confidentiality and data-protection safeguards are in place.

Reviewers must personally read and evaluate the manuscript. AI must not replace the reviewer's scientific judgment or generate the final recommendation on the reviewer's behalf.

Any authorised use of AI during peer review must be disclosed to the editor.

The reviewer remains fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, validity, and content of the review report.

11. Use of AI by Editors

Editors and editorial staff must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts.

AI may assist with administrative and preliminary screening activities, such as:

  • checking submission completeness;
  • checking formatting;
  • identifying text similarity;
  • detecting possible image irregularities;
  • checking metadata; or
  • suggesting potential reviewers.

AI must not be the sole basis for:

  • desk rejection;
  • acceptance or rejection of a manuscript;
  • determining that research or publication misconduct has occurred;
  • issuing a correction;
  • publishing an expression of concern;
  • retracting an article; or
  • reporting an author to an institution.

All consequential editorial decisions must be made and documented by a responsible human editor.

12. AI Detection Tools

The journal does not use an AI-detection score or percentage as the sole evidence that a violation has occurred.

AI-detection tools produce probabilistic results and may generate false positives or false negatives. Their results may therefore only serve as preliminary indicators requiring further human examination.

An investigation may consider:

  • nonexistent or inaccurate references;
  • fabricated quotations or data;
  • inconsistencies between methods and results;
  • original data and research records;
  • manuscript revision history;
  • code or analysis logs;
  • image metadata;
  • the authors' explanation; and
  • other independently verifiable evidence.

Authors will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond before an adverse editorial decision is made.

13. Editorial Actions

When the use of AI is inconsistent with this policy, the journal may take proportionate action, including:

  • requesting clarification;
  • requesting a revised AI declaration;
  • requiring manuscript revision;
  • rejecting or withdrawing the manuscript from the editorial process;
  • publishing a correction;
  • publishing an expression of concern;
  • retracting the article; or
  • referring serious or repeated misconduct to the relevant institution.

Failure to disclose minor language assistance will not automatically be treated in the same manner as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, peer-review manipulation, or deliberate deception.

Editorial actions will follow the journal's publication ethics procedures and provide the affected party with a reasonable opportunity to respond or appeal.

14. Human Responsibility and Accountability

The fundamental principle of this journal is:

“AI may assist. Humans must verify. Humans must decide. Humans remain accountable.”

Authors are responsible for the submitted and published content. Reviewers are responsible for their review reports. Editors and the publisher are responsible for editorial decisions and for maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record.

15. Policy Review

Because AI technologies and scholarly publishing standards continue to evolve, this policy will be reviewed periodically and may be updated when necessary.

Effective date: [insert date]
Last updated: [insert date]

References and Guiding Standards

This policy is informed by the recommendations and guidance of the following organisations:

  1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
    Committee on Publication Ethics

  2. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
    ICMJE Recommendations on Artificial Intelligence

  3. World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
    WAME Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative Artificial Intelligence

  4. UNESCO
    Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research