Artificial Intelligence Policy

Author Responsibility

Authors must critically assess all AI-assisted outputs before incorporating them into their work. They remain accountable for accuracy, originality, appropriate attribution, and compliance with applicable ethical and legal requirements.

• Verify factual statements, calculations, quotations, references, and interpretations against reliable original sources.
• Assess outputs for errors, bias, inappropriate generalisations, and misleading claims.
• Do not use AI to fabricate data, findings, citations, participant responses, or research activities.
• Do not present AI-generated material as evidence collected from real participants or observations.

AI tools must not be listed as authors or assigned CRediT contributor roles. Human contributions should be reported under CRediT Author Contributions .

When AI Use Must Be Disclosed

Authors must disclose generative AI use that goes beyond straightforward language correction, editing, or formatting. Examples include generating substantive text, substantial translation, developing code, synthesising literature, or assisting with analysis and interpretation.

Routine spelling, grammar, punctuation, and formatting assistance does not require a separate AI declaration when it does not generate substantive content or change the scientific meaning. Authors remain responsible for checking the result.

If AI or another automated method forms part of the research itself, describe it in the Methods section regardless of whether it also assisted manuscript preparation.

Disclosure does not automatically make a use acceptable. The editor may request clarification or supporting information to assess its effect on the reliability of the work.

Declaration of AI Use

Where disclosure is required, include a section titled Declaration of AI Use in the manuscript's declarations, after the conclusions and before the references. State:

1. The tool or model name, provider, and version where available.
2. The purpose and extent of use, identifying the affected sections or research activities.
3. How the authors reviewed, checked, and revised the outputs.

For research-related AI use, this statement supplements rather than replaces the methodological description. Update the declaration if additional AI use occurs during revision.

A statement declaring no AI use is not required. For double-anonymous review, remove identifying information from the review copy and provide any necessary unredacted details separately to the editorial office.

AI Used in Research Methods

When AI is used for activities such as coding qualitative data, analysing responses, developing software, or creating synthetic datasets, provide sufficient information for readers to understand and evaluate the procedure.

• Identify the model, version, relevant settings, and period of use where available.
• Explain input selection, preprocessing, validation, human oversight, and known limitations.
• Report relevant prompts, workflows, or code when necessary for reproducibility, subject to privacy, confidentiality, and legitimate restrictions.
• Clearly distinguish synthetic data and generated responses from empirical observations.

Generative AI responses must not be cited as authoritative sources supporting factual claims. Cite and verify the underlying literature instead. When a model or its output is itself the object of study, identify it as research material and document it appropriately in the Methods or supplementary material.

Images and Graphical Material

AI must not be used to create or alter images in ways that fabricate, conceal, or misrepresent research evidence. This includes generating purported participant photographs, experimental observations, or results that did not occur.

If AI-generated illustrations are used for explanatory purposes, identify them clearly in the caption and Declaration of AI Use. They must not be presented as empirical evidence.

Where image generation or processing is part of the research method, describe the procedure and validation in the Methods section. Retain original files and relevant processing records for editorial assessment.

Privacy, Confidentiality and Rights

Before using an AI service, assess its data retention, training, access, and confidentiality conditions. Do not enter identifiable participant information, confidential datasets, or third-party material without the necessary authority and safeguards.

Authors must also protect confidential reviewer reports and editorial correspondence. Permission to access material does not automatically include permission to disclose it to an external AI service.

Use by Peer Reviewers

Reviews must reflect the reviewer's own examination, expertise, and independent judgement. Reviewers must not use generative AI to produce scientific assessments, recommendations, or substantive peer-review reports.

• Do not upload manuscripts, extracts, figures, tables, supplementary files, or confidential correspondence to external generative AI services.
• Do not delegate evaluation of originality, methods, findings, or significance to generative AI.
• Language editing of a reviewer's own text is permitted only where confidentiality is protected. Any use of generative AI for this purpose must be disclosed to the handling editor, identifying the tool and purpose.

The reviewer remains responsible for every statement and reference included in the submitted report.

Use by Editors and Editorial Staff

Editors must not use generative AI to create scientific assessments or make acceptance, revision, or rejection decisions. Such decisions remain the responsibility of the appointed human editor.

Editors and staff must not upload confidential submission materials or review correspondence to external generative AI services. Language assistance for their own correspondence is permissible only when confidentiality is protected and substantive judgements remain human.

The journal uses Turnitin for text-similarity screening, as described in the Plagiarism Policy . Similarity reports are assessed by an editor and do not automatically determine plagiarism or editorial outcomes.

Any additional routine use of automated editorial tools will be disclosed in this policy or the relevant journal policy, with its purpose and human oversight. Tools must be evaluated for suitability before adoption, and their recommendations or integrity flags must be checked by editorial staff.

Concerns and Editorial Assessment

AI-detector scores alone do not establish misconduct. Editors assess the available evidence and give authors an opportunity to explain relevant concerns. Necessary clarification may include methodological records, source verification, or an updated declaration.

Failure to disclose required AI use, fabrication, or breaches of confidentiality will be assessed under the journal's Publication Ethics policy. That policy governs investigations, editorial action, appeals, and any necessary post-publication corrections.

Questions or concerns may be directed to jse@mediadigitalpublikasi.com .

Related Policies

• Author Guidelines — manuscript preparation and placement of declarations.
• CRediT Author Contributions — reporting human contributions.
• Publication Ethics — ethical responsibilities and handling concerns.
• Peer Review Process — independent assessment and editorial decisions.