Editorial Policy
Use of AI in authorship, review, and editing
A journal about artificial intelligence has to be exact about its own use of it. Accountability never transfers to a tool.
Authors
- An AI system cannot be an author. Authorship requires accountability a tool cannot hold.
- Disclose material use of generative AI in the manuscript: which tool, which version, for what purpose.
- Routine assistance -- spelling, grammar, reference formatting -- needs no disclosure.
- You remain answerable for every claim, quotation, citation, number, equation, and line of code in your submission, however it was produced.
- Fabricated citations are a research-integrity breach, not a formatting error.
Reviewers
- Do not upload any part of a manuscript under review to a generative AI service. It is a confidentiality breach.
- Do not delegate scholarly judgment to a tool. The recommendation must be yours.
- Disclose to the editor any AI assistance used in preparing your report.
Editors and this platform
- This platform provides AI-assisted triage and drafting tools. Their output is advisory and is labelled as such.
- The AI-Assisted Review Index is a pre-review signal for editorial triage, never a verdict.
- No manuscript is accepted, rejected, or desk-rejected on an AI output alone.
- AI-assisted assessments are recorded with provider, model, and input hash for auditability.
Citing AI output
Where generative AI output is itself the object of study or is quoted, cite it in MLA form: the prompt as the title, the tool as the container, the developer as publisher, and the date of generation. See the MLA style guide.