Generative AI Policy

Informasi recognises that generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Claude, DeepL Write, DALL-E, and Midjourney, can support scholarly work, for example by improving language and helping authors who write in English as a second language. These tools also carry risks. This policy sets out how authors, reviewers, and editors may use generative AI responsibly. It applies from Vol. 56 No. 2 (December 2026), is based on the COPE position statement on authorship and AI tools, and will be revised as the technology and good practice develop.

1. Why Caution Is Needed
Inaccuracy and bias AI tools can produce false statements, fabricated references, and biased content. Bias deserves particular attention in communication and media research, which often concerns gender, religion, ethnicity, politics, and marginalised groups.
Lack of attribution AI output may reproduce others’ ideas or text without credit, which may amount to plagiarism.
Confidentiality Content entered into third-party AI platforms, such as interview transcripts or unpublished manuscripts, may be exposed, stored, or reused to train models.
Synthetic media AI-generated or altered images, video, audio, and screenshots can be mistaken for genuine media content, which undermines research that analyses media texts.
2. Policy for Authors

2.1 Accountability and authorship

  • Authors are fully responsible for the originality, accuracy, and integrity of their manuscript, including any part produced with AI assistance. They must check all AI output and verify every fact and reference against the original source.
  • Generative AI tools must not be listed or cited as an author, because they cannot take responsibility for the work, consent to publication, or manage copyright. See the Authorship Policies.

2.2 Permitted uses (with disclosure)

  • Improving language, copyediting, and proofreading.
  • Translating the authors’ own text, for example from Indonesian into English, with careful checking.
  • Brainstorming or outlining.
  • Searching and organising literature, with every source checked.
  • Coding assistance (e.g., R, Python, NVivo, ATLAS.ti), with the code checked and validated.

2.3 Prohibited uses

  • Submitting AI-generated text as the authors’ own analysis or argument.
  • Generating or altering data, interview transcripts, quotations, survey responses, or field notes.
  • Generating references that the authors have not read and verified.
  • Uploading identifiable participant data to AI tools without consent and ethics approval for that use.

2.4 Images and media content

  • Permitted: AI assistance in creating charts, diagrams, and conceptual illustrations, if disclosed and based on accurate data.
  • Not permitted: creating or altering images presented as research data, such as screenshots of social media posts, news content, advertisements, film stills, or fieldwork photographs. This includes enhancing, removing, or adding features.

2.5 AI as an object of research

Research that studies AI itself, for example algorithms, chatbots, or AI-generated media, is welcome. The tools, prompts, and procedures used must be described in the Methods section, rather than in the AI Usage Statement.

2.6 AI Usage Statement

Every manuscript includes an AI Usage Statement before the References, as provided in the journal template. It states the tool and version, how and why it was used and in which sections, and how the authors checked the output. If no generative AI was used, authors state: “The authors did not use generative AI tools in the preparation of this manuscript.” Spelling and grammar checkers and reference managers such as Mendeley or Zotero do not need to be declared.

Example: “During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT (GPT-4o, OpenAI) to improve the language of the Introduction and Discussion, because English is not the authors’ first language. The authors reviewed and edited all output and take full responsibility for the content. No AI tools were used to generate or analyse data or to produce references.”
3. Policy for Reviewers
  • Reviewers must not use generative AI tools to evaluate manuscripts or write review reports.
  • Reviewers must not upload any part of a manuscript under review, including files, figures, tables, or supplementary material, to AI tools. Doing so breaches confidentiality and the anonymity of double-anonymous review.
  • If reviewers suspect undisclosed or inappropriate AI use in a manuscript, for example fabricated references, they tell the editor in their confidential comments rather than in the review itself.
4. Policy for Editors
  • Editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, review reports, or decision letters to generative AI tools.
  • Editorial decisions are made by human editors, not by AI tools.
  • Editors use only tools approved by the journal for specific tasks, such as similarity checking with Turnitin, and disclose any other use of AI in editorial work.
  • Results from AI-detection tools are not proof of AI use. Editors treat them as one indicator and give authors the opportunity to explain before taking any action.
5. Handling Breaches
Undisclosed but acceptable use The authors add an AI Usage Statement before publication, or a correction is published after publication.
Prohibited use The manuscript is rejected, or the published article is retracted, following the Research Misconduct Policy and the R-W-C Policy.
Breach by a reviewer or editor The review is disregarded, and the person may be removed from the reviewer list or the editorial team.
In every case, the authors are first asked to explain their use of AI and to provide evidence, such as drafts, data, or the sources behind their references.

Sources

Committee on Publication Ethics. (2023). Authorship and AI tools: COPE position statement. https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2024). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals (Section II.A.4). https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/

World Association of Medical Editors. (2023). Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts: WAME recommendations. https://wame.org/page3.php?id=106