Generative AI Policy

1. Purpose

This policy is established to ensure that the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is conducted responsibly, transparently, and ethically throughout the journal publication process—from manuscript preparation and editorial management to peer review. While GenAI can assist authors, editors, and reviewers, it must not replace the critical role of researchers in producing scholarly work.

2. General Principles

GenAI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot) may be used for language enhancement, brainstorming, or administrative tasks.
GenAI must not replace originality, critical thinking, academic integrity, or expert judgment.
Any use of GenAI must be transparent, ethical, and explicitly disclosed.

3. Policy for Authors

3.1 Permitted Uses

a. Improving grammar and language quality.
b. Assisting with manuscript formatting.
c. Brainstorming initial ideas.
d. Summarizing non-copyrighted content.
e. Managing references.

3.2 Prohibited Uses

Using AI to write an entire manuscript or substantial portions thereof.
Fabricating data, citations, images, or research results.
Using AI to analyze sensitive or confidential data.
Using AI without providing a clear disclosure.
3.3 Author Responsibilities

Authors must disclose the use of AI in a dedicated statement (e.g., “This manuscript used ChatGPT for language refinement only.”).
Authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and scientific integrity of the manuscript’s content.
AI tools cannot be listed as authors.
4. Policy for Reviewers and Editors

4.1 Permitted Uses

Refining the language of the reviewer’s own writing.
Creating brief summaries of non-confidential content.

4.2 Prohibited Uses

Uploading, sharing, or inputting a manuscript into any AI tool. Using AI to generate an entire peer review report.
Using AI in a manner that violates confidentiality or academic standards.
4.3 Reviewer and Editor Responsibilities

The review process must remain driven by human judgment.
Ensuring the complete confidentiality of documents.
Assessments must reflect the reviewer’s own expertise, not the output of AI.

5. Sanctions for Misuse

Violations of this policy may result in:

a. Rejection of the manuscript.
b. Retraction of a published article.
c. Reporting to the author’s institution.
d. Suspension from journal roles (author, reviewer, editor).
Be. lacklisting in cases of serious or repeated violations.

6. Updates to Policy

This policy may be updated periodically in line with evolving best practices and ethical guidelines regarding the use of GenAI in scholarly publishing, including those from COPE, IEEE, Elsevier, and DOAJ.