Artificial Intelligence Policy

1. AI Policy for Authors:

 

1.1. The Authors, Editors and the Reviewers acknowledge that AI assisted writing has become more common as AI technologies and AI bots become more accessible.

 

1.2. The Authors are not required to make disclosures if they have used AI to improve or enhance their work, such as tools to improve language, grammar or structure. However, authors are responsible for ensuring their submission is accurate.

 

1.3. Authors cannot cite Generative AI tools as primary sources within the references. If the manuscript was primarily or partially generated using AI, this must be disclosed upon submission, so that the Board of Editors can evaluate the manuscript accordingly.

 

1.4. The Authors must be conscious of the potential for plagiarism or copyright infringement of any kind, where the LLM may have reproduced substantial text or other material from other sources;

 

1.5. As iterated in the Submission Policy, the Authors are solely responsible for their opinions shared, sources quoted, facts stated and the claims made in their manuscript.

 

1.6. If after or during publication, the Editors are notified of significant AI use or copyrighted material because of the use of AI, the Editors shall immediately pause the review process and the Authors shall be served with a Show Case Notice (SCN) as to state (i) which portions of the manuscript have been significantly been generated by AI; (ii) why the Review Process should resume or (iii) why the publication of the manuscript should not be retracted.

 

1.7. AI bots such as ChatGPT, cannot be listed as an author on their manuscript.

 

2. AI Policy for Editors and Reviewers:

 

2.1. The Board of Editors and Peer Reviewers are strictly not allowed to use AI bots or LLMs for editorial work, as use of such software presents confidentiality and copyright issues.

 

2.2. The Board of Editors shall strictly not use AI bots or LLMs or Generative AI tools to generate summaries of manuscripts, which are unpublished research.

 

2.3. The Board of Editors and Peer Reviewers can use Generative AI to improve the quality of the language in their review reports. However, if they do so, they maintain the responsibility for the content, accuracy, and constructive feedback within the review and shall also highlight the use of such AI tools in their report.

 

2.4. Members of the Board of Editors and Peer Reviewers significantly using Generative AI tools to generate review reports inappropriately, will be discharged from their duties and will not be invited to review for the Journal.

 

2.5. Board of Editors and Peer Reviewers suspecting inappropriate or undisclosed use of Generative AI in a manuscript, should flag their concerns with the Chief Managing Editor. The Chief Managing Editor shall launch an investigation into the manuscript, including with the issuance of the SCN as under Clause 1.6.