Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-Assisted Technologies

Resolusi sets strict principles regarding generative AI: human accountability cannot be transferred to AI systems, scholarly and evaluative judgment must remain human-led, and all AI usage must be transparent and responsible.

For Authors

Authors are fully accountable for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and overall content of their manuscripts.

  • Authorship: Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies (such as large language models, machine translation, or text-polishing tools) cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. AI lacks legal status, cannot assume accountability, and does not possess intellectual capacity.
  • Permitted Uses: AI may be used for assistive tasks such as improving readability, language editing, organizing syntax, or summarizing literature. However, it must not replace original scientific thinking, data interpretation, or core research design.
  • Data, Citations, and Images:
    • Authors must rigorously verify AI-generated text or literature summaries to prevent fabricated references, factual inaccuracies, or hidden biases.
    • The direct generation or manipulation of experimental images, graphs, or artwork using AI is generally prohibited, unless explicitly required or approved as part of the research design (e.g., studies explicitly about AI generation).
  • Declaration & Disclosure: Authors must transparently disclose the use of generative AI in the manuscript (typically within the Methods section and/or the Acknowledgement statement). The disclosure should specify the tool/model name, version, and the specific sections/tasks where it was utilized. Note: Basic grammar and spelling checks or routine language polishing do not require formal disclosure.

For Peer Reviewers

Peer review relies on strict confidentiality, trust, and independent expert evaluation.

  • Prohibition of Public AI Uploads: Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, data, or supplemental files into public or open-access generative AI tools (e.g., public LLMs), as this breaches author confidentiality, data privacy rights, and proprietary agreements.
  • Preservation of Human Judgment: Reviewers may only use secure, institutionally approved, or publisher-vetted AI tools if they comply strictly with data privacy laws and confidentiality standards. Even when utilizing approved tools for structural organization or grammar feedback, AI cannot replace reviewer critique, reasoning, or final scholarly judgment. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the contents of their review report.

Transparency and Editorial Assessment

  • Article AI Usage Statements: Every published article may carry an AI Usage Statement detailing any substantive generative AI involvement, positioned alongside author contribution notes and the editorial history.
  • Risk-Assessed Evaluation: Editors evaluate AI usage based on the level of risk and human oversight. Opaque usage, unverified outputs, the delegation of core evaluation/authorial responsibilities to AI, or breaches of confidentiality will result in editorial action.