1. Introduction

The Journal acknowledges the growing use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in academic research, scientific writing, data analysis, language editing, and scholarly communication. While these technologies may support authors in improving the clarity and organization of manuscripts however, it do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria. Notably an attribution of authorship carries with its accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to AI. The use of a Large Language Model (or other AI-tool) for “AI assisted copy editing” purposes does not need to be declared. In this context, we define the term "AI assisted copy editing" as AI-assisted improvements to human-generated texts for readability and style, and to ensure that the texts are free of errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and tone.  These AI-assisted improvements may include wording and formatting changes to the texts, but do not include generative editorial work and autonomous content creation. Their use must be transparent, ethical, responsible, and compliant with international standards of scientific publishing.  In all cases, there must be human accountability for the final version of the text and agreement from the authors that the edits reflect their original work. This policy is established to provide guidance on the acceptable use of Generative AI tools in manuscript preparation, peer review, and editorial processes.

2. Acceptable Use of Generative AI by Authors

Authors may use Generative AI tools for limited purposes including:

• Language improvement and grammar correction;
• Enhancement of readability and manuscript structure;
• Formatting assistance;
• Idea organization and brainstorming;
• Assistance with coding or statistical syntax under appropriate supervision.

The use of AI tools must always remain under direct human oversight and intellectual control by the authors.

3. Unacceptable Use of Generative AI

Generative AI tools must not be used:

• To fabricate, falsify, or manipulate research data or findings;
• To generate fraudulent images, tables, or results;
• To create misleading scientific interpretations;
• To replace critical scientific reasoning or professional judgment;
• To generate fake references or inaccurate citations;
• To conduct unethical plagiarism or duplicate publication practices;
• To compromise patient confidentiality or privacy.

Any use of AI that undermines scientific integrity, research ethics, or originality constitutes misconduct.

4. Disclosure Requirements

Authors are required to clearly disclose the use of any Generative AI tool in the manuscript at the point of submission. The disclosure should include:

• Name of the AI tool used;
• Version (where applicable);
• Purpose for which it was used;
• Extent of its contribution to the manuscript.

The disclosure may be included in the Methods section, Acknowledgements section, or a separate “AI Disclosure Statement.” Example:“The authors used ChatGPT (OpenAI) for language editing and grammatical improvement of the manuscript. All scientific interpretations, conclusions, and final content were reviewed and approved by the authors.” Failure to disclose the use of Generative AI where applicable may result in manuscript rejection or further editorial investigation.

 

 

 

5. Authorship and Accountability

Generative AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors of any manuscript submitted to the Journal. AI systems do not meet internationally accepted authorship criteria because they cannot:

• Take responsibility for the integrity of the work;
• Approve the final manuscript;
• Respond to editorial queries;
• Declare conflicts of interest;
• Accept legal or ethical accountability.

All responsibility for the accuracy, originality, validity, and integrity of submitted work remains entirely with the human authors.

6. Accuracy and Verification

Authors must carefully review and verify all AI-generated content before submission. AI systems may generate inaccurate statements, fabricated references, biased information, or misleading interpretations. Authors are solely responsible for ensuring:

• Accuracy of scientific content;
• Proper citation and referencing;
• Compliance with ethical standards;
• Absence of plagiarism;
• Validity of statistical analyses and conclusions.

The Journal will not accept responsibility for errors arising from undisclosed or inappropriate AI use.

7. Confidentiality and Data Protection

Authors must not upload confidential, sensitive, proprietary, or identifiable patient information into publicly accessible AI systems. This includes:

• Patient records;
• Clinical images;
• Personal identifiers;
• Unpublished research data;
• Confidential institutional information.

All submissions involving human participants must continue to comply with ethical approval requirements and data protection regulations.

8. Use of AI by Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a vital role in scientific publishing. Their expert evaluations and recommendations guide editors in their decisions and ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible. Editors select peer reviewers primarily because of their in-depth knowledge of the subject matter or methods of the work they are asked to evaluate. This expertise is invaluable and irreplaceable. Peer reviewers are accountable for the accuracy and views expressed in their reports, and the peer review process operates on a principle of mutual trust between authors, reviewers and editors. Despite rapid progress, generative AI tools have considerable limitations: they can lack up-to-date knowledge and may produce nonsensical, biased or false information. Manuscripts may also include sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. Peer reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscripts under review. Reviewers are prohibited from uploading submitted manuscripts, data, images, or supplementary materials into public AI tools or systems without explicit authorization from the Journal AI tools should not replace independent scholarly assessment, critical appraisal, or expert peer review. 

If any part of the evaluation of the claims made in the manuscript was in any way supported by an AI tool, we ask peer reviewers to declare the use of such tools transparently in the peer review report.

9. Use of AI by Editors

Editors may use AI-assisted technologies for limited administrative functions such as plagiarism screening, language assessment, or workflow support. However, all editorial decisions shall remain under human editorial judgment and responsibility. Editorial decisions concerning acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts shall never be made solely by AI systems.

10. Ethical Compliance

The Journal adheres to internationally recognized standards of publication ethics and research integrity. Any misuse of Generative AI that violates ethical publishing standards may result in:

• Rejection of manuscripts;
• Retraction of published articles;
• Notification of affiliated institutions;
• Temporary or permanent submission restrictions.

11. Policy Review

As AI technologies continue to evolve, this policy may be updated periodically to reflect emerging international guidelines, ethical considerations, and best practices in scholarly publishing.