Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies

This policy governs the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and AI-assisted technologies by authors, editors, reviewers, and editorial staff of IJLHE: International Journal of Language, Humanities, and Education. All parties remain responsible for the accuracy, integrity, confidentiality, and originality of their contributions to the publication process.

1. Policy for Authors

1.1. AI and Authorship

IJLHE does not accept manuscripts that list chatbots or other AI tools as authors or co-authors. AI tools cannot fulfil authorship responsibilities, approve the final manuscript, disclose conflicts of interest, or take responsibility for the published work. These responsibilities rest entirely with the human authors.

1.2. AI as a Source of Information

AI-generated responses must not be cited as authoritative sources supporting factual or scholarly claims. Authors must consult and cite original, verifiable sources and check the accuracy of all references. Fabricated references, quotations, and evidence are unacceptable.

When AI-generated outputs are themselves the subject of research, authors may reproduce and document them as research materials. The tool, version where available, date of access, prompts, and relevant outputs must be reported sufficiently to explain how the materials were generated, subject to ethical and confidentiality requirements.

1.3. AI as a Research and Writing Aid

Authors may use AI tools to support the following activities, provided that the use is appropriate, verified, and clearly disclosed:

Proofreading and copyediting;
Structural and stylistic feedback;
Translation;
Data analysis and visualisation; and
Programming and code development.

Authors must review and verify AI-assisted content, including factual statements, translations, analytical procedures, code, and references. AI tools must not be used to fabricate data, invent findings, falsify participant responses, or manipulate research materials in ways that misrepresent the evidence.

1.4. Disclosure Requirements

Writing, editing, or translation: Disclose the use in a dedicated section at the end of the manuscript titled Declaration on the Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in Writing. Identify the tool, version where available, date or period of use, and specific purpose.
Research procedures, data analysis, or programming: Describe the relevant use in the Method section, including the tool, version where available, date or period of use, procedures, verification steps, and its contribution to the research. Include relevant prompts and outputs in supplementary materials when needed to understand or assess the procedure.
Prompts and research materials: Do not disclose personal information, confidential content, access credentials, or restricted data. Share datasets, code, and outputs only when permitted by consent, ethical approval, and applicable data protection requirements.

1.5. Data Protection and Ethical Use

Authors must not enter personal, sensitive, confidential, or restricted research data into AI systems unless the use is authorised and appropriate safeguards are in place. Institutional approval alone does not replace participant consent, ethical approval, or applicable data protection obligations.

Authors should consider potential bias, copyright restrictions, and the environmental and human implications of their use of AI tools.

2. Policy for Editors and Editorial Staff

2.1. Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff must protect unpublished manuscripts, supplementary files, author and reviewer identities, review reports, and editorial correspondence. These materials, including excerpts and identifying summaries, must not be uploaded to external generative AI services.

Any exception requires prior written authorisation from the journal and documented safeguards covering confidentiality, data retention, access, and the exclusion of submitted materials from model training. Anonymising a manuscript alone does not establish permission to upload it.

2.2. Editorial Assessment and Decisions

Editors must independently assess submissions and remain responsible for reviewer selection, ethical investigations, and editorial decisions. Generative AI must not replace scholarly judgment or independently determine whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.

2.3. Permitted Assistance and Disclosure

Editors and editorial staff may use AI for general administrative tasks or to improve generic communication templates when no confidential submission information is entered. Any authorised use involving a specific submission must be recorded in the editorial record, including the tool, date, purpose, and verification undertaken. Such use must be disclosed to the affected authors when it materially contributes to an editorial communication or decision.

3. Policy for Reviewers

3.1. Confidentiality of Peer Review

Reviewers must treat all materials received for review as confidential. They must not upload manuscripts, abstracts, tables, figures, supplementary materials, review reports, or manuscript-specific notes to external generative AI services. This restriction also applies when the purpose is translation, summarisation, or language editing.

Any proposed use involving confidential review materials requires prior written authorisation from the editor and the journal's documented safeguards. Removing names or affiliations does not, by itself, make such use permissible.

3.2. Independent Scholarly Evaluation

Reviewers must read the manuscript and develop their own assessment of its contribution, methods, evidence, interpretation, and limitations. They must not delegate the scholarly evaluation or the preparation of substantive review comments and recommendations to generative AI. Reviewers remain responsible for every statement and recommendation in their reports.

3.3. Limited Assistance and Disclosure

AI may be used for general language guidance that contains no manuscript-specific or confidential information. Any permitted use that contributes to preparing a review must be disclosed to the editor when the report is submitted. The disclosure must identify the tool, version where available, purpose, and extent of use. Disclosure does not make an otherwise prohibited use acceptable.

4. Screening Tools and Human Verification

The journal may use approved similarity-checking or AI-screening tools subject to confidentiality and data protection safeguards. Screening results are indicators for further examination and must not be treated as conclusive evidence of misconduct. Editorial action must be based on human assessment of the available evidence, with an opportunity for the relevant party to respond.

5. Disclosure Statements

5.1. Author Disclosure

Include the following declaration at the end of the manuscript, adapting it to reflect the actual use:

Declaration on the Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in Writing

During the preparation of this manuscript, the author(s) used [TOOL NAME AND VERSION, IF AVAILABLE] in [DATE OR PERIOD] for [SPECIFIC PURPOSE]. The author(s) reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the manuscript.

If no generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were used, authors may state:

The author(s) did not use generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in preparing this manuscript.

5.2. Reviewer Disclosure to the Editor

In preparing this review, I used [TOOL NAME AND VERSION, IF AVAILABLE] for [PERMITTED PURPOSE]. No confidential manuscript content or manuscript-specific review material was entered into the tool. The scholarly assessment and recommendation are my own, and I take full responsibility for this report.

5.3. Editorial Record of Authorised Use

[TOOL NAME AND VERSION, IF AVAILABLE] was used on [DATE] for [PURPOSE] under [JOURNAL AUTHORISATION AND SAFEGUARDS]. The output was checked by [EDITOR OR STAFF ROLE]. The handling editor retains responsibility for the assessment, communication, and final decision.

6. Non-Compliance

Suspected breaches will be assessed according to their nature, extent, and effect on research integrity or confidentiality. The journal may request clarification, require corrections, obtain a replacement review, reassign editorial handling, reject a submission, or initiate post-publication action where warranted. The relevant party will be given an opportunity to respond before a final determination is made.