Artificial Intelligence Policy

Effective with the 2026 issuesAI cannot be an authorDisclosure required

This policy on ChatGPT and other generative AI tools is informed by the position of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). It applies to Ingenium Journal of Science, Technology and Business (IJSTB) and to all other journals owned and published by Andalas Borneo Justice Publisher, takes effect with the 2026 issues, and applies to all subsequent publications.

Use of Large Language Models and Generative AI Tools in Writing Your Submission

All journals owned and published by Andalas Borneo Justice Publisher recognize the benefits of using large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, and generative AI as productivity tools for authors during the preparation of manuscripts. These tools may assist in generating initial ideas, structuring content, summarizing, paraphrasing, and refining language. However, language models have inherent limitations and cannot replace human creativity, judgment, and critical thinking. Human oversight and substantive intellectual contribution remain indispensable to ensure the accuracy, integrity, and appropriateness of the content presented to readers.

Accordingly, authors are required to observe the following considerations when using LLMs in their submissions:

Objectivity

LLM-generated text may contain previously published content with biases, including racism, sexism, or other biases. Minority viewpoints may not be adequately represented. The use of LLMs has the potential to perpetuate these biases, since the information generated is decontextualized and harder to identify.

Accuracy

LLMs can produce false content, particularly when used beyond their domain or when addressing complex or ambiguous topics. They might generate linguistically plausible but implausible content, provide incorrect facts, and even generate nonexistent citations. Some LLMs may also lack access to recent data, resulting in an incomplete picture.

Contextual understanding

LLMs struggle to apply human understanding to the context of a given text, especially when dealing with idiomatic expressions, sarcasm, humor, or metaphorical language. This can lead to errors or misinterpretations in the generated content.

Training data

LLMs require a substantial amount of high-quality training data to achieve optimal performance. However, in certain domains or languages, such data may not be readily available, limiting the model's usefulness.

Guidance for Authors

Authors are required to:

Clearly indicate the use of language models in their manuscripts, specifying which model was employed and for what purpose, in the declaration described under Disclosure Instructions below.

Verify the accuracy, validity, and appropriateness of the content and citations generated by language models, correcting any errors or inconsistencies that may arise.

Provide a list of sources used to generate content and citations, including those generated by language models. Authors should carefully review citations to ensure accuracy and proper referencing.

Be aware of the potential for plagiarism when language models reproduce substantial text from other sources. Authors should cross-check the original sources to avoid plagiarizing others' work.

Acknowledge the limitations of language models in their manuscripts, including the potential for bias, errors, and knowledge gaps.

AI bots such as ChatGPT must not be listed as authors in a submission.

Appropriate corrective action will be taken if published articles are found to involve undisclosed use of such tools.

Authors should review the journal's Author Guidelines for any specific policies regarding these tools.

Disclosure Instructions

Authors must disclose the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process by adding a statement at the end of the core manuscript file, before the References list. The statement should be placed in a new section entitled "Declaration of AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process".

Statement to use:

During the preparation of this work the author(s) used [NAME OF TOOL / SERVICE] in order to [REASON]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the publication.

This declaration does not apply to the use of basic tools for checking grammar, spelling, references, and similar tasks. If there is nothing to disclose, there is no need to add a statement.

Editors and Reviewers

Maintaining the integrity of the editorial and peer review process requires reviewers and editors to uphold strict standards of confidentiality, objectivity, and accuracy at every stage of manuscript evaluation. With the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, including generative AI tools such as ChatGPT and similar systems, it is essential to establish clear ethical boundaries.

For reviewers

Any manuscript submitted for peer review is confidential and must not be uploaded, shared, or processed using generative AI tools in any form. Uploading manuscripts or review reports to such tools may compromise author confidentiality, infringe copyright, and breach data privacy regulations. Furthermore, scholarly peer review demands critical thinking and expert judgment, which cannot be delegated to AI. Reviewers are therefore prohibited from using generative AI to write, structure, or assist in the preparation of review reports. Reviewers remain fully responsible and accountable for the content and conclusions of their evaluations.

For editors

All manuscripts and related editorial correspondence must be treated as confidential. Editors must not upload manuscripts, decision letters, or any editorial communications into generative AI tools, even for purposes such as language refinement. Editorial decisions, including the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript, must be based on the editor's own professional evaluation and judgment, not on the output or suggestions generated by AI systems.

Permitted technical uses

AI technologies may be permitted for limited technical functions such as plagiarism detection or formatting checks, provided that these tools do not access or process the scholarly content of manuscripts directly, and that they are operated within secure, official systems that adhere to established data privacy and ethical standards.

Suspected misuse

If there is reasonable suspicion that a reviewer or author has misused generative AI without proper disclosure, editors should report the matter promptly to the publisher or the journal's governing body for investigation.

While we acknowledge and support the responsible use of emerging technologies, the scholarly assessment of research and editorial decision-making remain fundamentally human responsibilities that must not be delegated to machines.

Further Information

Please see the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) recommendations on chatbots, ChatGPT, and scholarly manuscripts, and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) position statement on Authorship and AI tools.

This policy may be subject to further evolution as we work with our publishing partners to understand how emerging technologies can facilitate or hinder the research publication process. Please revisit this page for the latest information.