This policy governs how generative AI tools may be used for:
- Manuscript preparation
- Peer review
- Editorial decision‑making
Authors
The journal recognises that authors may use artificial intelligence (AI)–based tools in the preparation of manuscripts. Such tools may be used to assist with summarising, language editing, grammar, formatting, or other non‑substantive tasks. AI tools must not be used to generate original scholarly content, data, interpretations, or citations. Key principle: AI may assist, but not replace scholarly judgment.
Authors are not permitted to submit manuscripts where AI was used to generate original scholarly arguments or interpretations. AI systems may not be listed as authors. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all submitted content, including any material generated or assisted by AI tools. Use of AI does not transfer accountability.
Where AI tools are used in a manner that materially affects the content of the manuscript, authors must disclose this use in the methods or acknowledgements section of their manuscript at the time of submission. Disclose is only required where AI use exceeds basic copy‑editing. No disclosure required for spelling/grammar tools (e.g. treated like a spellchecker).
The use of AI tools to fabricate data, references, or analyses, or to submit content that the authors cannot verify, constitutes a breach of publication ethics.
Reviewers
Peer reviewers may use AI tools only for limited, non‑substantive assistance (such as summarising a manuscript for personal understanding, checking consistency, or organising their own confidential notes), but AI must not replace expert judgment. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or reviews to AI systems that have not been authorised by the journal Editor-in-Chief, use AI to draft reviews or make recommendations, delegate ethical or scholarly assessment, or attempt to identify authors. All submitted materials remain confidential, and reviewers retain full responsibility and accountability for the content, tone, and integrity of their reviews; disclosure of routine AI assistance is not required where independent human judgment is clearly maintained.
Editors
Editors may use AI tools only to support non‑substantive, assistive tasks—such as clarifying or organising their own confidential notes, summarising manuscripts for personal understanding, checking consistency or style, or supporting administrative workflows—but AI must not replace expert editorial judgment. Editors must not upload manuscripts or confidential materials to ungoverned AI systems outside the University, use AI to generate peer‑review reports or editorial decisions in the place of human judgement, delegate ethical or scholarly assessment, or attempt to infer author identities in a double‑blind process. All submitted materials remain confidential, and editors are fully responsible and accountable for editorial recommendations, decisions, and the ethical integrity and fairness of the review process; AI may assist or suggest, but it cannot judge or decide. Routine AI assistance does not require disclosure, but editors should ensure that the human basis of decisions is clearly documented where AI use materially influences an assessment.