01

Principles

—  Humans remain accountable for all content.

—  AI tools cannot be authors.

—  All substantive use of AI is disclosed.

—  Unpublished manuscripts are never uploaded to AI tools.

The journal follows the COPE position statement on authorship and AI tools. It is aware of the risks of AI: inaccurate or invented content, bias, missing attribution, exposure of confidential material and intellectual property, and reuse of submitted data by AI providers.

02

Authors: allowed, with disclosure

—  Brainstorming research questions and outlining.

—  Language editing and proofreading, including support for writers whose first language is not English.

—  Translating your own text, with careful checking.

—  Searching and classifying literature, with every source checked against the original.

—  Help with code, which is checked and validated.

—  Figures such as data visualisations, conceptual illustrations, and flow diagrams, if the underlying data are accurate.

Authors review all AI output, check facts and references against the original sources, make sure that the work reflects their own analysis, and check that the terms of the tool protect confidentiality, intellectual property, and participant data.

03

Authors: not allowed

—  Submitting AI-generated text or code without thorough human revision, or presenting it as your own analysis.

—  Generating or altering data, results, transcripts, quotations, survey responses, or field notes, or creating synthetic data without a transparent and disclosed method.

—  Generating references. Every citation must be real, verified, and read.

—  Producing inaccurate abstracts, keywords, or supplementary material.

—  Uploading identifiable or confidential participant data without consent and ethical approval for that use.

—  Creating or manipulating research images, such as fieldwork photographs, documents, or screenshots, including enhancing, obscuring, moving, removing, or adding features.

—  Listing or citing an AI tool as an author.

04

Disclosure

Include a Declaration of Generative AI Use in the end matter of the manuscript, following the journal template. State:

1.  the name and version of the tool;

2.  how it was used, and which sections were affected;

3.  why it was used;

4.  how the output was reviewed and verified.

If no generative AI was used, say so. Basic spelling and grammar checkers and reference managers do not need to be declared.

05

Reviewers and editors

—  Reviewers do not upload manuscripts, or any part of them, to AI tools, and do not use AI to analyse or summarise a manuscript or to write a review. They may use AI only to polish the language of a review they wrote themselves, without any manuscript content. See AI in Peer Review.

—  Reviewers who suspect undisclosed or inappropriate use of AI tell the editor in the confidential comments.

—  Editors keep submissions and reviews confidential, do not upload them to AI tools, and do not use AI to make or justify decisions. They use only journal-approved tools for specific checks, such as similarity checking, and treat the results of AI detectors as one indicator, not as proof.

06

If the policy is not followed

1.  A concern is raised by an editor, a reviewer, a screening check, or a reader.

2.  The editor asks the authors to explain their use of AI and to give evidence, such as drafts, data, or sources, within 14 days for a manuscript under review or 30 days for a published article.

3.  If the use was acceptable but not disclosed, the authors add a declaration before publication, or a corrigendum is published. If the use was prohibited, the manuscript is rejected or the article is retracted, and the case may be handled under Research Misconduct. A reviewer or editor who breaks the policy has the review disregarded and is removed from the reviewer database or the editorial board.

07

Related

AI in Peer Review  ·  Authorship Policy  ·  Research Misconduct  ·  Publication Ethics

08

Sources

This policy is based on the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE):