Plagiarism & AI Use

Ethical Writing, Plagiarism Policy, and Use of AI Tools

At IJIE (Indonesian Journal of Informatics Education), we maintain a strong commitment to academic integrity and uphold the highest standards of ethical writing.

We are strictly against plagiarism in any form. All submitted manuscripts will be screened for textual similarities using plagiarism detection tools. However, authors are strongly encouraged to conduct a self-assessment of their manuscripts prior to submission to ensure originality and proper citation of all sources.

• Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 20% will be automatically rejected without further consideration.

• This threshold excludes properly cited references and standard terminologies but includes all forms of unattributed copying.

Use of AI Tools in Writing

IJIE acknowledges that authors—especially non-native English speakers—may use AI-based tools (e.g., grammar checkers or language refiners) to improve clarity and grammar. However:

• The use of AI should be strictly limited to language refinement only.

• Authors remain fully responsible for the originality, interpretation, and accuracy of the content.

• Manuscripts that exhibit AI-generated content beyond acceptable boundaries (e.g., full paragraph generation without author input or originality) will be rejected.

We trust our authors to maintain transparency and uphold ethical practices in the preparation of their manuscripts.

Open Access Policy

The journal provides readers with immediate free access to all published content. The access to the journal's content will be available online once the issue is published. To download the open access papers, however, may be subject to registration into the journal system.

License Term

The IJIE allows adaptations of the published papers to be shared for individual or commercial use. The publisher, however, urges the adopting parties to share their work under the similar licensing term. 

The following sign will be displayed in each article. 

Copyright and Permission

IJIE suggests that the authors retain the copyright of their works. It also encourages the publication of the work in any other format by the author or other interested parties. 

IJIE, however, request that the latest version of the publication cites the initial published version in IJIE.   

Publication Ethics

PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

For all parties involved in the publication process (the author, the journal editor(s), the peer reviewer and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour. The ethics statements for the IJIE (Indonesian Journal of Informatics Education) are based on the Best Practice Guidelines for Peer-reviewed Publication by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

To maintain the highest standards of publication ethics, IJIE strictly enforces the following core policies and specific responsibilities:

PART 1: CORE PUBLICATION POLICIES

1. COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS POLICY

IJIE is committed to addressing complaints and appeals fairly, transparently, and in accordance with COPE guidelines.

• Appeals against Editorial Decisions: Authors have the right to submit a reasoned appeal against a rejection decision if they believe a material error occurred during the editorial or peer-review process. Appeals must be submitted via email to the Editorial Office (cbudiyanto@staff.uns.ac.id), identifying specific grounds for reconsideration. Appeals will be assessed by an independent editor or editorial board member who was not directly responsible for the original decision.

• Complaints about Editorial Management or Ethics: Concerns regarding suspected publication misconduct, manipulation of the editorial process, or other administrative complaints can be reported through the IJIE Online Journal System (OJS) or directly to the Editorial Office. All allegations will be handled confidentially, fairly, and without retaliation. (Further details are outlined in Part 4).

2. DATA SHARING AND REPRODUCIBILITY POLICY

IJIE promotes transparency and reproducibility in informatics education research. We strongly encourage authors to make the research data underlying their findings publicly available.

• Data Availability Statement: Authors are required to provide a Data Availability Statement in their manuscript, indicating where data supporting the results can be found, including links to publicly archived datasets analyzed or generated during the study.

• Acceptable Repositories: Authors are encouraged to deposit their raw data, software code, research instruments (e.g., questionnaires, interview protocols), and other supplementary materials in recognized public repositories (such as Zenodo, Mendeley Data, OSF, or institutional repositories) under an open license.

• If data cannot be shared publicly due to ethical, privacy, or confidentiality restrictions, authors must explicitly state these restrictions in the Data Availability Statement.

3. ETHICAL OVERSIGHT (HUMAN SUBJECTS)

As a journal focused on Informatics Education, research often involves human subjects (e.g., students, teachers).

• Authors must ensure that studies involving human participants have been carried out in accordance with relevant institutional and national ethical guidelines.

• Authors must explicitly state in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained from all human subjects (or their legal guardians/parents for minors) prior to their participation in the research. Where required, approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or local ethics committee must be disclosed in the methodology section.

PART 2: DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

DUTIES OF THE EDITORS-IN-CHIEF

Fair play The evaluation of submitted manuscripts are concerning papers' academic content regardless authors race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. A first come first serve principle is the common norm.

Confidentiality Information about a submitted manuscript shall not be disclosed by the Editor-in-Chief and any editorial staffs to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and the publisher.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest Material disclosed in a submitted manuscript whether published or unpublished must not be used in an Editor's own research and publication. Written consent of the author(s) should be sought for further collaboration. In this regard, the correspondence and collaboration beyond the journal's interest.

Publication decisions The Editor-in-Chief is the one who responsible for deciding the articles to be published in any issue. The Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal's Editorial Board and constrained by such legal requirements to enforce the rule against libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

DUTIES OF PEER REVIEWERS

Contribution to editorial decisions Peer reviewers contribute to academic discourse by assisting the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions. Peer reviewers also assist the author in improving the submitted manuscript through editorial communication with the author.

Promptness Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review a manuscript or knows that timely response will be impossible should immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief. It is the Editor in-Chief's responsibility to alternate between potential reviewers.

Confidentiality Any manuscripts assigned for review must be treated as confidential documents. The Editor-in-chief's permission must be sought prior to show or discuss the manuscript with others.

Standards of objectivity Reviews should be conducted objectively by expressing their views clearly with the appropriate rationale and supporting arguments. The criticism of the author is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of sources Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

Reporting standards Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Originality and plagiarism The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works and if the authors have used the work and/ or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. The publisher provides an automated scan for plagiarism when a manuscript is submitted online.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of sources Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of a manuscript Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. All co-authors must be clearly indicated as of the moment of manuscript submission. Adding co-authors at a later stage WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

Hazards and human or animal subjects If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal's Editor-in-Chief or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

PART 3: PUBLISHER'S CONFIRMATION

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the Editors-in-Chief, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected works.

PART 4: PUBLICATION INTEGRITY AND HANDLING OF ETHICAL CONCERNS

IJIE (Indonesian Journal of Informatics Education) is committed to maintaining the integrity, independence, and reliability of the scholarly record. In addition to the responsibilities of editors, reviewers, authors, and the publisher described below, IJIE follows the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices in handling concerns relating to research and publication integrity.

Ethical concerns may be raised before or after publication. All allegations will be considered on their merits, regardless of who raises the concern, and will be handled confidentially, fairly, and without retaliation against individuals who raise concerns in good faith.

Reporting Publication Ethics Concerns Concerns regarding suspected publication misconduct, manipulation of the editorial or peer-review process, inappropriate citation practices, errors in published articles, or other matters affecting the integrity of the journal may be reported:

1. through the IJIE Online Journal System (OJS); or

2. to the Editorial Office at cbudiyanto@staff.uns.ac.id.

Reports should, where possible, identify the article or manuscript concerned and provide sufficient information or supporting evidence to allow the journal to assess the allegation.

Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain specific and verifiable information. The identity of a complainant or whistleblower will not normally be disclosed beyond those who need the information to investigate the matter, unless disclosure is required by law or expressly authorised by the complainant.

Independent Handling and Conflict of Interest A person who has a personal, professional, financial, institutional, collaborative, competitive, or other significant conflict of interest in a case must not investigate, adjudicate, or make the final editorial decision in that case.

If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest or is the subject of an allegation, responsibility for the case will be transferred to an appropriate member of the Editorial Board who has no relevant conflict of interest.

If the concern involves several members of the editorial team, the publisher will designate an independent editor, Editorial Board member, or other suitably qualified person without a conflict of interest to oversee the case.

Editors who are authors of, reviewers of, or directly involved with the work under investigation will take no part in the investigation or decision. Where appropriate, IJIE may seek confidential advice from independent subject specialists, research-integrity experts, the relevant institution, or other journals or publishers involved in the case.

General Procedure for Handling Allegations When an ethical concern is received, IJIE will normally:

1. acknowledge and document the concern;

2. conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the allegation is specific, relevant, and supported by sufficient information to warrant further inquiry;

3. preserve relevant editorial and peer-review records;

4. appoint an editor or investigator without a relevant conflict of interest;

5. seek clarification or evidence from the author, reviewer, editor, or other party concerned when appropriate;

6. examine relevant submission records, reviewer accounts, correspondence, manuscript versions, citation patterns, or other available evidence;

7. consult independent experts or relevant institutions when the issue cannot appropriately be resolved by the journal alone;

8. provide the person or persons concerned with a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive allegations;

9. reach an editorial decision on the balance of the available evidence; and

10. take appropriate action on the manuscript or published article and maintain a record of the decision.

Failure by an author, reviewer, or other party to respond does not prevent the journal from reaching a decision when sufficient evidence is available.

PART 5: MANIPULATION POLICIES

CITATION MANIPULATION

Definition Citation manipulation is the inappropriate addition, removal, or promotion of references primarily for the purpose of increasing citation counts, journal metrics, author metrics, reviewer metrics, or the perceived influence of particular publications rather than for legitimate scholarly reasons.

Citation manipulation may include, but is not limited to:

• requiring authors to cite articles from IJIE when those articles are not relevant to the manuscript;

• requiring or pressuring authors to cite an editor's or reviewer's publications without a clear scholarly justification;

• excessive or irrelevant self-citation intended primarily to increase citation indicators;

• coordinated citation arrangements or citation cartels among authors, reviewers, editors, journals, or institutions;

• citation stacking designed to inflate citation metrics; and

• making acceptance or favourable review conditional upon the inclusion of unnecessary citations.

Self-citation is not in itself unethical. Authors may appropriately cite their own previous research when it is directly relevant to the work being reported. Similarly, reviewers and editors may recommend additional references when those references materially improve the accuracy, context, interpretation, or completeness of a manuscript. Such recommendations must be based on scholarly relevance rather than citation advantage.

Procedure Editors should evaluate reviewer requests for additional citations before forwarding or enforcing them. Authors are not required to add citations merely because they have been requested by a reviewer or editor.

Where citation manipulation is suspected, IJIE may examine:

• the relevance of requested or added citations;

• repeated citation requests involving the same reviewer, editor, author, journal, or group of publications;

• unusually concentrated journal or author self-citation patterns;

• reviewer reports and editorial correspondence; and

• evidence of reciprocal or coordinated citation behaviour.

A reviewer suspected of coercive citation behaviour may be asked to explain the scholarly basis for the citation requests. Unjustified citation requests will not be imposed on authors.

Decisions and Actions For manuscripts under review, confirmed citation manipulation may result in:

• removal of inappropriate citation requests;

• replacement or exclusion of the affected reviewer;

• reassignment of the manuscript to another editor;

• rejection of the manuscript where the authors are found to have intentionally manipulated citations;

• removal of a reviewer or editor from future IJIE activities; or

• notification of the relevant institution or publisher in serious or repeated cases.

For published articles, IJIE will assess whether the citation manipulation affects only the reference record or also raises concerns about the integrity of the article or publication process. Depending on the seriousness of the case, action may include:

• a correction removing or clarifying inappropriate citations;

• an editorial notice explaining a material problem with the citation record;

• an Expression of Concern while a substantial investigation is ongoing; or

• retraction where citation manipulation forms part of broader systematic manipulation that materially undermines confidence in the integrity of the article or its editorial assessment.

PEER REVIEW MANIPULATION

Definition Peer review manipulation is any deliberate action intended to compromise, circumvent, fabricate, or improperly influence the independent assessment of a manuscript.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

• supplying fabricated reviewer names or identities;

• supplying false or misleading reviewer email addresses;

• using an email account controlled by an author, co-author, third party, or collaborator while presenting it as belonging to an independent reviewer;

• impersonating another researcher;

• authors reviewing their own manuscripts under another identity;

• undisclosed coordination among authors and reviewers;

• organised peer-review rings in which participants provide reciprocal favourable reviews;

• submission of fabricated, purchased, or third-party-generated peer-review reports;

• unauthorised access to or manipulation of the journal's submission system;

• inappropriate interference by an editor, guest editor, author, reviewer, or third party with reviewer selection or editorial decisions; and

• concealing a significant conflict of interest that compromises reviewer independence.

Author suggestions of potential reviewers are permitted when requested by the journal, but the journal is not obliged to use them. Reviewer selection and verification remain the responsibility of the editorial team.

Prevention and Verification IJIE may verify reviewer identities using institutional affiliations, institutional email addresses, ORCID records, publication histories, recognised scholarly profiles, or direct independent contact. The journal may decline reviewer suggestions when the reviewer's identity, independence, expertise, or contact information cannot be satisfactorily verified. Unusual patterns in reviewer recommendations, reviewer accounts, turnaround times, language, contact information, or networks of reviewing activity may be examined when there are reasonable concerns about the integrity of the review process.

Procedure for Suspected Peer Review Manipulation When manipulation is suspected before publication, IJIE may:

1. suspend the editorial decision while the concern is investigated;

2. verify the identity and independence of the reviewer;

3. review submission-system records and editorial correspondence;

4. disregard reviews considered unreliable;

5. obtain new independent peer reviews;

6. reassign the manuscript to an editor without a conflict of interest; and

7. request an explanation from the relevant author, reviewer, editor, or third party.

Decisions and Actions For manuscripts that have not yet been published, confirmed manipulation may result in:

• invalidation of the affected peer-review reports;

• appointment of new independent reviewers;

• rejection of the manuscript;

• suspension or removal of the reviewer or editor involved;

• restriction of future submissions or reviewing activities where appropriate; and

• notification of the relevant institution, publisher, or other affected journals in serious or systematic cases.

For an article that has already been published, IJIE will assess whether the article received an independent and reliable scholarly evaluation. Where confidence in the peer-review process can be restored through a new independent assessment and the article remains reliable, IJIE may publish an appropriate editorial notice or correction. Where an investigation is incomplete but there are substantial concerns that may affect confidence in the article, IJIE may publish an Expression of Concern. Where there is sufficient evidence that the article was published on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer-review process and the integrity of the publication cannot be assured, IJIE may retract the article in accordance with COPE guidance.

PART 6: POST-PUBLICATION DISCUSSION, CORRECTIONS, AND CONCERNS

IJIE welcomes responsible scholarly discussion of articles after publication. Readers, authors, reviewers, and other members of the scholarly community may raise questions concerning errors, interpretation, methodology, data, citations, research ethics, or publication integrity. Post-publication comments must address scholarly or publication-integrity issues and should be supported by appropriate evidence. Personal attacks, discriminatory statements, defamatory allegations, or unsupported accusations will not be considered as legitimate scholarly critique.

Channels for Post-Publication Discussion Post-publication concerns or critiques may be submitted:

• through the IJIE OJS;

• to the IJIE Editorial Office at cbudiyanto@staff.uns.ac.id; or

• through a publicly accessible scholarly discussion platform, where the journal becomes aware of a substantial and verifiable concern.

The journal may act on credible concerns regardless of the channel through which they first come to its attention.

Handling of Post-Publication Critiques When a substantive critique is received, the responsible editor will first determine whether it:

1. raises a scholarly disagreement or alternative interpretation;

2. identifies a correctable factual or reporting error;

3. raises a potential research or publication ethics concern; or

4. provides insufficient evidence to warrant further action.

Where appropriate, the authors of the published article will be informed of the concern and given an opportunity to respond. The journal may seek assessment from independent experts. Where possible, persons who made the original editorial decision or reviewed the article may be consulted only if they have no conflict of interest. When their involvement could create actual or perceived bias, new independent experts will be appointed. A substantive critique and an author response may be published as correspondence or other appropriate scholarly commentary when this contributes meaningfully to the academic record. Scholarly disagreement alone is not grounds for correction or retraction when the reported research remains reliable.

Corrections A correction will normally be issued when an error or omission materially affects the interpretation, attribution, presentation, or accuracy of the article but does not invalidate its main findings or conclusions. Corrections may address matters including:

• factual errors;

• incorrect author or affiliation information;

• errors in figures, tables, data presentation, or references;

• omitted disclosures;

• inappropriate citations; or

• other errors for which correction is sufficient to maintain an accurate scholarly record.

The correction notice will identify the article concerned and describe transparently what has been corrected.

Expression of Concern IJIE may publish an Expression of Concern when:

• there is substantial reason to question the integrity or reliability of an article;

• an investigation is ongoing and the outcome may affect the status of the article;

• available evidence is inconclusive; or

• an institutional investigation or other information necessary for a final decision is significantly delayed.

An Expression of Concern is an interim notice and may subsequently be followed by a correction, retraction, or notice that the concern has been resolved.

Retraction Retraction may be considered when there is sufficient evidence that the findings or publication record are seriously unreliable or when serious publication misconduct has materially undermined confidence in the article. Grounds may include, as appropriate:

• fabrication or falsification;

• serious plagiarism;

• major redundant publication;

• unethical research;

• unauthorised use of material or data;

• serious copyright or legal concerns;

• a major undisclosed competing interest that materially affected the publication;

• systematic manipulation of the publication process; or

• publication based on a compromised or manipulated peer-review process.

Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record and inform readers that the article should not be relied upon. It is not primarily a punitive measure.

Retraction Notices and Preservation of the Scholarly Record A retracted article will normally remain accessible as part of the permanent scholarly record but will be clearly identified as retracted. The retraction notice will:

• be clearly labelled as a retraction;

• identify and link to the affected article;

• state who is retracting the article;

• provide the reason for the retraction in objective and factual language;

• distinguish, where possible, between honest error and misconduct;

• be freely accessible; and

• be linked from the original article.

The journal will not normally remove an article completely from the publication record except in exceptional circumstances involving compelling legal, privacy, safety, or similar considerations.

Editorial Notes and Other Amendments Where neither correction nor retraction is the appropriate response, IJIE may publish an editorial note, publisher's note, or other permanent notice where this is necessary to maintain transparency about the publication record. All significant post-publication amendments will be dated and linked to the affected article so that readers can identify the status and history of the publication.

Institutional and Cross-Journal Cooperation When a concern requires access to information beyond the journal's authority or expertise, IJIE may refer the matter to the author's, reviewer's, or editor's institution for investigation. When the same concern involves articles in more than one journal, IJIE may cooperate with other editors or publishers, while maintaining appropriate confidentiality, to establish the relevant facts and protect the integrity of the scholarly record. The journal retains responsibility for editorial decisions concerning material published in IJIE. An institutional determination may inform, but does not replace, the journal's responsibility to decide whether correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or another editorial action is required.

PART 7: FAIRNESS, DOCUMENTATION, AND FINAL DECISION

All publication-integrity cases will be handled proportionately and on the basis of available evidence. Individuals against whom concerns are raised will normally be given an opportunity to respond before a final adverse decision is made.

Editorial decisions concerning publication ethics will be made by the Editor-in-Chief or, where a conflict of interest exists, by an independent editor or Editorial Board member designated for the case.

The journal will distinguish between honest error, differences in scholarly interpretation, questionable practices, and evidence of deliberate misconduct when determining appropriate action.

IJIE will document significant publication-integrity investigations and the reasons for its decisions. Where the reliability or status of a published article is affected, the scholarly record will be amended transparently through an appropriate correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or editorial notice.

These policies are informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and relevant COPE guidance on allegations of misconduct, conflicts of interest, peer-review processes, citation manipulation, systematic manipulation of the publication process, post-publication discussions and corrections, and retractions.

Article Processing Cost

The IJIE (Indonesian Journal of Informatics Education) waives all costs related to the submission, processing, and publication of quality research papers from authors worldwide. We encourage researchers from various fields of Informatics and Informatics Education to submit their work to IJIE free of charge.

IJIE is fully open access and adheres to a no-APC policy, meaning:

• No submission fees

• No peer-review or editorial handling fees

• No publication or access fees

All accepted articles are published freely and are made openly accessible to support the advancement of knowledge and equitable access to academic publishing.

No Fast-Track Service Provided

IJIE does not offer a fast-track or expedited review service. All submissions are processed through the journal’s standard peer-review procedure, which includes:

• Initial editorial screening

• Revisions

• Final editorial decision

This policy ensures fairness, academic rigor, and equal opportunity for all authors. We do not prioritize any manuscript or author, and no requests for fast-track review will be accommodated under any circumstance.

Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy

Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy

Authors preparing a manuscript for the IJIE (Indonesian Journal of Informatics Education) can use Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to support their research and writing processes. However, these tools must never be used as a substitute for human critical thinking, expertise, and evaluation. AI technology should always be applied with human oversight and control.

To maintain academic integrity and ensure the responsible use of technology, the IJIE (Indonesian Journal of Informatics Education) adopts the following policy regarding the use of Generative AI and AI-assisted tools in manuscript preparation, data analysis, and peer review.

1. Transparency and Disclosure

Authors must fully disclose any use of Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Claude, Midjourney, DALL·E, Grammarly, etc.) in the preparation of the manuscript.

• Disclosure should be included in a dedicated section titled “Declaration of AI Use” placed before the References section at the end of the manuscript.

• The disclosure must specify:

• The tool(s) used.

• The purpose of use (e.g., language editing, figure creation, coding assistance, literature mapping).

• The scope and extent of the assistance.

• Undisclosed use of AI tools may be considered a breach of publication ethics.

2. AI Cannot Be Listed as an Author

Generative AI tools cannot be credited as authors, co-authors, contributors, or correspondents. Only humans with verifiable intellectual contributions and accountability can be listed as authors.

3. Responsibility and Accountability

Authors bear full responsibility for the manuscript's content. This includes:

• The accuracy, validity, and originality of all content generated with or assisted by AI.

• Checking for errors, "hallucinated" or fabricated information, incorrect citations, or biased outputs.

• Ensuring that text, data, figures, or programming code produced with AI assistance do not infringe upon copyrights or ethical standards.

• The journal will not accept manuscripts containing unverifiable, fabricated data, or untested code produced solely by AI tools.

4. Restrictions on AI-Generated Content

AI tools may be used for:

• Grammar correction, language refinement, and proofreading.

• Drafting text that is subsequently heavily revised and critically reviewed by the author.

• Figure enhancement, image clarity improvement, or aesthetic editing (without altering data meaning).

• Data analysis or software development assistance (e.g., coding help, debugging), provided authors retain full control, understand the logic, and rigorously verify the results.

AI tools may NOT be used for:

• Generating primary research data, experimental results, or statistical outcomes.

• Fabricating citations or generating false literature summaries.

• Producing images, figures, or code snippets that may misrepresent scientific findings or system performance.

• Writing substantial sections of the manuscript (such as the methodology or discussion) without significant human revision and critical input.

5. Data, Images, Code, and Figure Integrity

All data, images, figures, and programming code must reflect factual and verifiable results. If AI tools are used for editing visual elements (e.g., to improve brightness, clarity, or color), authors must ensure that:

• No scientific information or data points are altered or obscured.

• No manipulation misleads the interpretation of the results.

6. AI Use by Reviewers and Editors

• Reviewers and editors must NOT upload confidential manuscripts (or parts of them) into Generative AI tools to analyze, summarize, or provide peer review feedback. Doing so violates the author's confidentiality and intellectual property rights.

• AI tools may only be used by reviewers/editors for non-confidential tasks, such as basic grammar checking of their own review reports.

7. Ethical Considerations

Misuse of AI tools—such as generating false data, misrepresenting findings, submitting AI-generated plagiarism, or failing to disclose AI use—constitutes academic misconduct. Such actions may lead to:

• Immediate manuscript rejection.

• Retraction of the article after publication.

• Reporting the incident to the authors’ affiliated institutions.

• Bans or restrictions on future submissions to the journal.