AI Policy

JoEMS (Journal of Education and Management Studies) recognises that artificial intelligence can support research and scholarly communication. Its use must preserve originality, transparency, confidentiality, and human accountability.

This policy applies to authors, reviewers, and editors and complements the journal’s policies on authorship, plagiarism, peer review, and publication ethics.

1. Human Responsibility and Authorship

AI tools, including chatbots, large language models, and image generators, must not be listed as authors or co-authors. They cannot approve publication, declare competing interests, or accept responsibility for research integrity.

Human authors remain responsible for the entire submission, including AI-assisted material. They must verify factual claims, citations, analytical procedures, and conclusions against reliable sources and research records.

2. Acceptable Use by Authors

AI may support language improvement, translation, formatting, coding, or research analysis when its use is appropriate, transparently reported, and critically supervised.

Authors must understand and validate the tools and outputs they use. AI assistance must not replace the authors’ original intellectual contribution, methodological decisions, interpretation, or scholarly judgement.

For systematic reviews, AI-assisted searching, screening, extraction, or synthesis must be described in the Methods section, including human verification and relevant limitations. References suggested by AI must be checked against the original publications.

3. Unacceptable Use

Authors must not use AI to:

  • Fabricate research participants, observations, quotations, references, data, or results.

  • Present generated content as evidence collected from actual participants or organisations.

  • Conceal plagiarism, manipulate findings, or misrepresent research procedures.

  • Generate a manuscript that the listed authors cannot explain, verify, and defend.

Studies that legitimately investigate AI-generated outputs or use synthetic data are not automatically excluded. Such materials must be clearly identified, methodologically justified, and distinguished from empirical observations.

4. Disclosure Requirements

Authors must disclose generative AI use in a section titled “Declaration of AI Use”, placed before the References. The declaration must identify the tool and provider, version or access date where available, purpose, and affected parts of the work.

Use that affects research methods, data processing, analysis, or reproducibility must also be explained in the Methods section. Relevant prompts, settings, or validation procedures should be supplied where necessary to assess the research.

Routine non-generative spelling checks, reference management, and basic formatting do not require a separate AI declaration.

Example declaration:

“During manuscript preparation, the authors used [tool name, provider, and version or access date] to [specific purpose] in [sections or activities]. The authors reviewed and verified the outputs and take full responsibility for the final manuscript.”

Disclosure does not make an otherwise unacceptable use permissible.

5. Images and Confidential Information

AI-generated conceptual illustrations must be labelled and accompanied by an explanation of their production. They must not misleadingly represent actual research settings, participants, or findings.

Authors must protect personal information, confidential organisational records, and third-party intellectual property. Such material must not be entered into AI services without appropriate authorisation and adequate safeguards.

6. Reviewers and Editors

Reviewers and editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, figures, review reports, or confidential correspondence to external generative AI services.

They must not delegate manuscript assessment, reviewer recommendations, or editorial decisions to AI. Reviews must reflect the reviewer’s own examination, and publication decisions must remain under human editorial responsibility.

7. Assessment and Non-Compliance

AI-detection scores alone will not establish misconduct or determine rejection. Editors will consider the manuscript, disclosures, supporting evidence, and explanations from the authors.

The journal may request clarification, methodological records, or revisions. Confirmed violations may result in rejection or appropriate post-publication action under the journal’s Correction and Retraction policy. Authors will have an opportunity to respond before a final determination.