AI Policy

1. Purpose and Scope

The Journal of Educational Study (JoES) recognizes that artificial intelligence (AI), including generative AI tools, is increasingly used in academic research, scholarly writing, and editorial workflows. These technologies may support researchers in improving language, organizing ideas, exploring literature, and assisting with certain analytical tasks. However, their use also raises concerns regarding research integrity, accuracy, originality, confidentiality, and accountability.

This policy establishes the principles governing the responsible use of AI tools by authors, reviewers, and editors involved in the publication process of JoES. It aims to encourage appropriate technological innovation while safeguarding academic integrity, transparency, and the quality of scholarly publications.

2. Use of AI by Authors

Authors may use AI tools to support specific aspects of research and manuscript preparation, provided that their use is responsible, transparent, and consistent with established research ethics.

Permitted uses may include:

Improving grammar, spelling, punctuation, and academic language.
Enhancing the clarity, readability, and organization of a manuscript.
Generating preliminary ideas, outlines, or suggestions for further consideration.
Assisting with coding, data processing, statistical procedures, or qualitative data analysis when appropriate and adequately verified.
Supporting literature exploration and research planning, provided that sources and findings are independently checked.
Assisting with translation and language refinement.

Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, validity, and integrity of their submitted manuscripts, regardless of whether AI tools have been used. AI tools must not replace the authors' intellectual contribution, critical judgment, interpretation of evidence, or responsibility for research findings.

3. Prohibited and Unacceptable Uses of AI

JoES does not permit the use of AI tools to engage in research or publication misconduct. Unacceptable practices include, but are not limited to:

Fabricating or falsifying research data, findings, references, quotations, or other scholarly evidence.
Presenting AI-generated content as verified research findings without appropriate evaluation and validation.
Submitting AI-generated manuscripts or substantial sections of scholarly work without meaningful human intellectual contribution and appropriate disclosure.
Using AI to manipulate, misrepresent, or conceal research procedures, data, or results.
Generating fictitious citations or relying on references that have not been verified.
Reproducing copyrighted material or confidential information in ways that violate applicable rights or ethical obligations.
Using AI to impersonate another researcher, reviewer, or editor.
Using AI-generated content to circumvent plagiarism screening, AI-related integrity checks, or other editorial safeguards.

The use of AI itself does not automatically constitute misconduct. Editorial concerns will be assessed in context, taking into account the nature of the use, the degree of human contribution, the accuracy of the content, applicable disclosure requirements, and the integrity of the research.

4. Disclosure of AI Use

Authors must disclose the use of generative AI tools when these tools have materially contributed to the development of a manuscript, including the generation or substantial revision of text, the development of research content, or the analysis or interpretation of data.

The disclosure should identify the AI tool used, describe its purpose, and explain its contribution to the manuscript. Authors should also indicate how AI-generated outputs were reviewed and verified, where appropriate.

Routine spelling, grammar, punctuation correction, or basic language editing that does not materially contribute to the intellectual content of the manuscript does not ordinarily require a separate disclosure.

Authors may include a statement under the heading Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies.

Example of an AI disclosure statement:

During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [name of AI tool] for [specific purpose]. The authors reviewed, verified, and revised the relevant outputs and take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the final manuscript.

If no disclosure is required under this policy, authors do not need to include a statement solely to declare routine spelling or grammar assistance.

5. AI and Authorship

AI tools, including large language models and generative AI systems, cannot be listed as authors or co-authors of manuscripts submitted to JoES.

Authorship requires human accountability, intellectual contribution, and the ability to take responsibility for the work. Authors must ensure that all individuals listed as authors meet appropriate authorship criteria and that the manuscript reflects genuine scholarly contributions.

AI-generated content does not independently establish authorship or justify authorship attribution.

6. Use of AI by Reviewers

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and all associated materials.

Reviewers must not upload, paste, or otherwise disclose unpublished manuscripts, confidential research data, reviewer reports, or editorial communications to external AI tools unless the journal has explicitly authorized such use and appropriate confidentiality and data protection safeguards are in place.

AI tools must not replace reviewers' independent academic judgment. Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, fairness, relevance, and constructiveness of their evaluations. They must critically verify AI-generated information and comply with the journal's conflict-of-interest and confidentiality requirements.

7. Use of AI by Editors

Editors may use AI tools for limited administrative or language-related tasks where appropriate, provided that confidentiality, data protection, and publication ethics are maintained.

Editors must not delegate editorial decisions to AI systems. Decisions concerning manuscript suitability, peer review, revision, acceptance, or rejection must remain under human editorial control.

Editors must ensure that AI-assisted processes do not compromise confidentiality, introduce unjustified bias, or undermine the fairness and integrity of editorial decisions.

Unpublished manuscripts and confidential editorial materials must not be entered into external AI systems without appropriate authorization and safeguards.

8. AI Detection and Editorial Assessment

JoES may use available technological tools, editorial assessment, and other relevant evidence to investigate potential concerns involving AI-generated content or research integrity.

However, AI detection scores alone are not conclusive evidence of misconduct. AI detection tools may produce false positives or false negatives and should not be treated as definitive proof of whether a manuscript was written by AI.

When concerns arise, the editorial team may request clarification from the authors, additional information about the research and writing process, supporting documentation, or revisions to address identified problems.

Editorial decisions will be based on the overall evidence, the quality and integrity of the manuscript, the authors' explanations, and the journal's publication ethics standards.

9. Violations and Editorial Actions

Failure to comply with this policy may result in further editorial assessment. Depending on the seriousness and nature of the concern, JoES may take one or more of the following actions:

Request clarification or additional documentation from the authors.
Request revisions, corrections, or appropriate disclosure.
Reject a manuscript when substantial integrity concerns remain unresolved.
Suspend editorial processing while a concern is investigated.
Issue a correction or take other appropriate post-publication action when warranted.

Any action will be proportionate to the circumstances and consistent with the journal's publication ethics procedures. The journal will consider the available evidence and provide authors with an appropriate opportunity to respond to concerns.

10. Authors' Responsibility

Authors are ultimately responsible for all content submitted to and published in JoES, including content developed with AI assistance. They must verify factual claims, references, quotations, data, analytical outputs, and interpretations before submission.

Authors must ensure that AI-assisted work complies with applicable research ethics, confidentiality obligations, intellectual property requirements, and the journal's editorial policies.

The use of AI does not exempt authors from responsibility for errors, misleading claims, fabricated evidence, plagiarism, or other forms of research misconduct.

11. Policy Updates

JoES recognizes that AI technologies and scholarly publishing standards continue to evolve. This policy may be reviewed and updated when necessary to reflect developments in research practices, publication ethics, and responsible AI use.

By submitting a manuscript to JoES, authors acknowledge their responsibility to comply with this policy and all other applicable journal requirements.