AI Tools Usage Policy

1. Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI), generative AI, AI agents, large language models, machine-learning systems, coding assistants, image-generation systems, and other AI-assisted technologies are increasingly used in research and scholarly communication. These technologies can support legitimate research and publishing activities, but they also introduce risks relating to accuracy, fabrication, bias, confidentiality, privacy, intellectual property, authorship, reproducibility, and accountability.

The International Journal of Advanced Science Computing and Engineering (IJASCE) permits responsible use of AI and AI-assisted technologies where their use preserves human intellectual responsibility, research integrity, transparency, confidentiality, and the reliability of the scholarly record.

This policy is informed by the COPE Core Practices, the COPE Discussion Document on Artificial Intelligence in Decision Making, the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, relevant international guidance on AI in scholarly publishing, and current developments in responsible AI policies for journal authors, reviewers, and editors.

The COPE document on Artificial Intelligence in Decision Making is a discussion document rather than formal COPE policy. IJASCE therefore uses it as ethical guidance alongside the COPE Core Practices and the journal's established publication ethics policies.

2. Scope

This policy applies to the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies by:

  • authors during research design, data collection, analysis, coding, modeling, visualization, interpretation, and manuscript preparation;

  • authors creating or modifying figures, diagrams, illustrations, data visualizations, or other research materials;

  • reviewers participating in the IJASCE peer review process;

  • editors and editorial board members handling submitted manuscripts;

  • journal staff involved in technical checks, publication ethics assessment, copyediting, production, or other journal processes; and

  • AI-assisted or automated systems that may be used by IJASCE in editorial and publishing workflows.

The requirements apply according to the function performed by the technology, not merely the product name. A tool may offer both conventional and generative AI functions. Whether disclosure or additional safeguards are required depends on how the tool was actually used.

3. Governing Principles

All AI use in IJASCE-related research and publication must follow the principles below.

3.1 Human Accountability

Human authors, reviewers, and editors remain responsible for the scholarly work and decisions assigned to them. AI may support human work but must not replace the intellectual contribution, critical judgment, accountability, or ethical responsibilities required of authors, reviewers, or editors.

3.2 Transparency

Material use of AI must be disclosed where required by this policy. Readers, reviewers, and editors should be able to understand where AI played a meaningful role in producing, analyzing, interpreting, or presenting the research.

3.3 Verification

AI-generated output must not be assumed to be accurate. Human users are responsible for independently checking factual claims, calculations, references, interpretations, code, data transformations, images, and other AI-generated or AI-modified output.

3.4 Confidentiality and Privacy

AI use must not compromise confidential manuscripts, unpublished research, peer review information, personal data, restricted datasets, intellectual property, or other protected information.

3.5 Reproducibility

Where AI forms part of the research methodology, its use must be reported with sufficient methodological detail to allow readers to understand and, where reasonably possible, reproduce or evaluate the process.

3.6 Human Final Decision-Making

AI systems must not make the final decision to accept or reject an IJASCE manuscript. Decisions concerning publication, correction, expression of concern, retraction, allegations of misconduct, or other consequential research-integrity actions must remain under responsible human editorial oversight.

4. Use of AI by Authors During Manuscript Preparation

Authors may use AI tools in a supportive capacity during manuscript preparation. Appropriate uses may include:

  • assisting with organization or structure of author-developed material;

  • improving clarity, readability, or language;

  • supporting literature exploration;

  • assisting authors in identifying possible gaps or questions for further investigation;

  • assisting with formatting or presentation;

  • supporting translation, subject to appropriate human verification;

  • assisting with preparation of certain explanatory diagrams or illustrations in accordance with Section 8; and

  • other assistive tasks that do not substitute for the authors' scholarly judgment and intellectual contribution.

Authors remain fully responsible for all submitted content regardless of whether AI contributed to its preparation.

Authors must critically review and edit AI-assisted content to ensure that the final manuscript reflects their own scientific reasoning, interpretation, conclusions, and original scholarly contribution.

5. AI Use Requiring Disclosure

Authors must disclose the use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies when the technology makes a substantive contribution to manuscript preparation.

Examples requiring disclosure include AI used to:

  • generate or substantially rewrite manuscript text;

  • substantively restructure arguments or sections;

  • summarize or synthesize literature for use in manuscript development;

  • translate substantive manuscript content;

  • generate or materially modify explanatory figures or illustrations;

  • select, synthesize, generate, or materially edit references;

  • assist with substantive interpretation or synthesis of findings; or

  • perform another task that materially contributes to content presented in the manuscript.

5.1 Uses That Normally Do Not Require Disclosure

Disclosure is normally not required for:

  • basic spelling checks;

  • basic grammar checks;

  • basic punctuation correction;

  • traditional reference-manager functions that do not use generative AI to select, generate, summarize, or modify references; or

  • specialized disability-related assistive technologies used solely for accessibility purposes.

Where a language or writing tool moves beyond basic correction and makes substantive changes to wording, sentence structure, organization, argumentation, or content, that use must be disclosed.

6. AI Declaration for Manuscript Preparation

Where disclosure is required, the manuscript must contain a separate section titled:

Declaration of AI and AI-Assisted Technologies

The declaration should identify:

  • the tool or service used;

  • the purpose for which it was used;

  • the material or stage of manuscript preparation it assisted;

  • where relevant, the version or model used; and

  • confirmation that the authors reviewed and verified the resulting content and accept full responsibility for the manuscript.

An appropriate declaration may follow this general form:

During the preparation of this manuscript, the author(s) used [tool/service] for [purpose]. The author(s) reviewed, verified, and edited the resulting material as necessary and take full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and content of the published work.

The declaration is intended to provide transparency and does not reduce the responsibility of the authors.

7. AI Used as Part of the Research Method

AI used as part of the research itself must be distinguished from AI used merely to prepare the manuscript.

When AI is used in research design, data processing, software development, modeling, prediction, classification, optimization, simulation, data analysis, interpretation, or another research method, authors must describe that use in the Methods section with sufficient detail for scientific assessment.

Depending on the role of the AI system, relevant information may include:

  • the name of the model, system, or service;

  • model or software version;

  • developer or provider;

  • date of access where model behavior may change over time;

  • the specific scientific task performed;

  • relevant input data;

  • material prompts, instructions, or system configurations where scientifically relevant;

  • parameters or settings necessary to understand the procedure;

  • procedures for validating AI output;

  • human review or quality-control procedures;

  • known limitations or sources of uncertainty; and

  • other information necessary for reproducibility or methodological evaluation.

AI use that constitutes part of the research methodology should be reported as methodology rather than solely through the general AI declaration.

8. AI-Assisted Coding and Software Development

AI-assisted generation or modification of research code is permitted when scientifically appropriate, but authors remain responsible for the validity, security, licensing, reproducibility, and correctness of the resulting code.

When AI-generated or AI-assisted code forms a material part of the research method, authors must describe its use in the Methods section.

Authors must verify that:

  • the code performs the intended scientific function;

  • the code does not introduce undetected errors or fabricated functionality;

  • dependencies and software requirements are appropriately documented;

  • third-party intellectual property and software licenses are respected;

  • security-sensitive or confidential information has not been improperly disclosed to an AI provider; and

  • the same standards of validation and reproducibility that apply to human-written code are applied to AI-assisted code.

9. Literature, Citations, and References

AI tools may assist authors in exploring literature, organizing references, or identifying potentially relevant sources. AI-generated citations and bibliographic information must never be assumed to be accurate.

Authors must independently verify every citation included in the manuscript against the original source.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that:

  • the cited source actually exists;

  • authors, title, journal, year, volume, pages, DOI, and other bibliographic information are accurate;

  • the cited source supports the statement for which it is cited;

  • the source has not been misrepresented by an AI-generated summary; and

  • fabricated, hallucinated, or unverifiable references are not included.

AI-generated output should not be used as a substitute for consulting and citing the underlying scholarly source where that source is available.

10. AI-Generated and AI-Assisted Images, Figures, and Artwork

The acceptability of AI assistance depends on the function of the image.

10.1 Explanatory and Conceptual Images

AI may be used to assist in preparing explanatory material such as:

  • conceptual diagrams;

  • flowcharts;

  • decision trees;

  • timelines;

  • schematic illustrations; and

  • research workflow diagrams.

Authors must verify the scientific accuracy and originality of the resulting image.

Material AI involvement must be disclosed both in the general AI declaration and in the figure caption. The caption should identify the AI tool and describe its role in creating or modifying the figure.

10.2 Data Visualizations

AI-assisted plots, graphs, heatmaps, charts, or other data visualizations are permitted only when they are faithfully derived from the actual underlying research data.

AI must not invent, fabricate, selectively alter, or misrepresent the underlying data or results.

The analytical or computational process used to produce the visualization must be reproducible and described in the Methods section where material to interpretation of the research.

10.3 Primary Research Images

Generative AI must not be used to create or alter an image that is presented as primary observed or experimental evidence when the represented information was not actually obtained in the research.

Authors must not use generative AI to fabricate, add, remove, or materially modify features in primary research images in a manner that changes the evidence represented by the image.

Where AI-based image processing is itself part of the research methodology, such use may be legitimate but must be described transparently and reproducibly in the Methods section and must not be presented as unprocessed primary evidence.

10.4 Graphical Abstracts and Similar Visual Summaries

Where IJASCE requests or permits a graphical abstract or similar visual summary, authors should use tools with clear publication and intellectual property terms. General-purpose generative AI should not be used to create a graphical abstract unless expressly permitted by IJASCE for the specific submission.

11. Synthetic and AI-Generated Research Data

The use of AI to generate synthetic data may constitute a legitimate research methodology in fields such as machine learning, simulation, privacy-preserving analysis, digital twins, and computational experimentation.

Synthetic or AI-generated data must not be misrepresented as empirically observed, measured, or independently collected data.

Where synthetic data materially contribute to the research, authors must describe:

  • why synthetic data were used;

  • how the data were generated;

  • the model or system used;

  • relevant parameters or prompts;

  • the relationship between synthetic and real-world data;

  • validation procedures;

  • known limitations and biases; and

  • ethical or privacy implications where applicable.

Fabricating research data and presenting it as genuine empirical evidence is prohibited regardless of whether AI was involved.

12. Translation Using AI

Authors may use AI-assisted translation, but they remain responsible for the accuracy, completeness, scientific meaning, terminology, and potential bias of the translated text.

Substantive AI-assisted translation must be disclosed.

The translated material should be reviewed by a person capable of evaluating both the relevant language and the scientific content.

13. AI Cannot Be an Author

AI systems, language models, chatbots, AI agents, and other software tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors of IJASCE publications.

Authorship requires responsibilities that AI cannot fulfill, including:

  • accepting accountability for the accuracy and integrity of the work;

  • approving the final manuscript;

  • agreeing to publication;

  • responding to questions about the work;

  • disclosing competing interests; and

  • accepting responsibility for corrections or other post-publication actions.

Human authors remain accountable for all AI-assisted content.

14. Confidentiality, Privacy, Intellectual Property, and Tool Terms

Before using an external AI service, authors must consider whether the tool's terms and technical practices adequately protect:

  • unpublished intellectual property;

  • confidential research data;

  • personal or identifiable information;

  • third-party copyrighted or licensed material;

  • commercially sensitive information;

  • security-sensitive material; and

  • the authors' right to subsequently publish the resulting work.

Authors should determine whether content submitted to an AI service may be retained, reused, disclosed to third parties, or used to train or improve an AI model.

Confidential, restricted, identifiable, or third-party material must not be uploaded to an AI service unless the authors have the legal and ethical authority to do so and the service provides protections appropriate to that information.

15. Use of AI by Peer Reviewers

Submitted manuscripts are confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers must protect the confidentiality, intellectual property, and unpublished findings of authors.

A reviewer must not upload, paste, transmit, or otherwise provide the submitted manuscript or any portion of it to a public or external generative AI service.

This restriction includes:

  • manuscript text;

  • abstracts not already public;

  • figures or tables;

  • supplementary material;

  • unpublished data;

  • source code;

  • author-identifying information obtained through the review process; and

  • other confidential information derived from the manuscript.

A tool being described as private, enterprise, or locally hosted does not by itself authorize disclosure of manuscript content. Reviewers remain bound by IJASCE confidentiality requirements.

15.1 Permitted Supportive Uses

AI may be used in a limited supportive capacity where no confidential manuscript information is disclosed. Examples may include:

  • general background literature exploration that does not reveal unpublished manuscript information;

  • improving the grammar or readability of reviewer-authored generic wording;

  • improving organization or tone of comments where manuscript confidentiality remains protected; or

  • other journal-approved functions that do not transfer confidential manuscript content to an unauthorized system.

AI must not perform the scientific assessment in place of the reviewer.

The reviewer's:

  • evaluation of methodology;

  • interpretation of findings;

  • assessment of originality;

  • evaluation of research integrity;

  • critical reasoning;

  • comments to the authors; and

  • recommendation to the editor

must remain the reviewer's own professional judgment.

15.2 Reviewer Disclosure

A reviewer who uses generative AI or an AI-assisted system for a permitted supportive purpose must disclose that use to the editor, except for basic spelling, grammar, or punctuation checking.

The disclosure should identify the tool and the purpose for which it was used and should confirm that the reviewer remains fully responsible for the scientific assessment and review report.

16. Use of AI by Editors

Editors must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential documents.

Editors must not upload or transmit submitted manuscripts or confidential manuscript material to unauthorized external AI systems.

AI may support limited editorial activities where confidentiality and data protection are preserved. Depending on the system and journal workflow, supportive applications may include:

  • technical completeness checks;

  • scope-support tools;

  • reviewer identification support;

  • language or structural refinement of editorial correspondence;

  • background literature exploration;

  • research-integrity screening that flags matters for human assessment; and

  • other administrative or technical functions approved by IJASCE.

AI output is advisory. Editors must independently evaluate information generated or flagged by AI.

16.1 Final Editorial Decisions

An AI system must not independently make a final decision to:

  • accept a manuscript;

  • reject a manuscript;

  • determine that plagiarism or misconduct has occurred;

  • issue an expression of concern;

  • retract an article;

  • contact an author's institution on research-integrity grounds; or

  • impose another consequential editorial action.

The responsible human editor retains final accountability for editorial decisions and their communication.

17. AI-Assisted Journal Systems and Transparency

IJASCE may use automated or AI-assisted systems for appropriate technical, administrative, screening, or editorial-support functions.

Where an AI-assisted journal system materially processes manuscript content or contributes to editorial evaluation, IJASCE should ensure appropriate controls concerning:

  • confidentiality;

  • data security;

  • intellectual property;

  • bias;

  • system performance and limitations;

  • human oversight; and

  • accountability.

IJASCE will not represent an AI-generated recommendation as an independent scholarly judgment.

Where material AI-assisted processing is incorporated into IJASCE's editorial workflow, the journal will communicate the relevant use transparently to affected participants where appropriate.

18. AI-Generated Content Detection and Integrity Screening

Automated systems that estimate whether text, images, code, or other material may have been generated or modified by AI may be used only as screening or investigative signals.

An AI-detection score or automated classification must not, by itself, be treated as proof of misconduct or as the sole basis for manuscript rejection, correction, retraction, or institutional notification.

Where automated screening raises a material concern, an editor must assess the relevant evidence in context and may request clarification or supporting documentation from the authors.

The journal will distinguish between:

  • permitted and disclosed AI assistance;

  • permitted AI use that was inadequately disclosed;

  • inaccurate or inappropriate AI-generated content;

  • fabrication or falsification involving AI;

  • misrepresentation of AI-generated material as empirical evidence; and

  • other research or publication integrity concerns.

19. Documentation of AI Use

Authors should maintain reasonable records of material AI use associated with manuscript preparation or research methods.

Depending on the scientific importance of the AI activity, appropriate records may include:

  • tool and model names;

  • versions;

  • dates of use;

  • material prompts or instructions;

  • relevant generated outputs;

  • parameters and configuration;

  • evidence of human review or validation; and

  • changes made after AI assistance.

IJASCE may request relevant documentation when necessary to evaluate reproducibility, accuracy, disclosure, or a credible research-integrity concern.

20. Responsibilities

Authors are responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, legality, disclosure, and appropriate use of all AI-assisted content and research processes associated with their manuscript.

Reviewers are responsible for maintaining confidentiality, performing their own scientific evaluation, disclosing permitted substantive AI assistance, and ensuring that AI does not replace their critical judgment.

Editors are responsible for protecting confidential manuscript information, independently evaluating AI-assisted screening results, maintaining human control over editorial decisions, and ensuring that AI is not used as the sole decision-maker in publication or research-integrity matters.

IJASCE and its publisher are responsible for establishing appropriate safeguards and transparency when AI-assisted technologies are implemented within journal-controlled publishing workflows.

21. Handling Suspected Noncompliance

Potential noncompliance with this policy will be evaluated according to its nature, significance, effect on the reliability of the work, and whether the issue resulted from inadequate disclosure, error, misuse, fabrication, falsification, confidentiality breach, or another integrity concern.

IJASCE will conduct an editorial assessment rather than treating every AI-related concern as research misconduct.

Possible actions before publication may include:

  • requesting an AI declaration;

  • requesting clarification or documentation;

  • requesting revision or removal of problematic material;

  • requesting verification of references, data, code, figures, or other content;

  • obtaining additional editorial or expert assessment;

  • suspending consideration while a serious concern is assessed; or

  • rejecting the manuscript when unresolved AI-related problems materially compromise its integrity, originality, reliability, confidentiality, or compliance with journal policy.

After publication, an incomplete or inaccurate AI disclosure may be corrected when the article otherwise remains reliable.

An expression of concern may be appropriate when serious unresolved questions remain.

Retraction may be considered when AI-related fabrication, falsification, unreliable content, manipulated evidence, serious ethical violation, or another fundamental problem renders the published findings or conclusions unreliable.

Formal investigation of researcher misconduct, where required, is ordinarily the responsibility of the relevant institution or competent authority. IJASCE remains responsible for correcting the scholarly record.

22. Reviewer or Editor Misuse of AI

Unauthorized disclosure of confidential manuscript material to an AI system may constitute a breach of peer review confidentiality and publication ethics.

Where such a concern arises, IJASCE may:

  • seek clarification from the reviewer or editor;

  • terminate or reassign the review or editorial handling;

  • exclude the affected review from editorial consideration;

  • review whether confidentiality or intellectual property was compromised;

  • take proportionate action concerning future reviewer or editorial assignments; and

  • apply relevant IJASCE complaints, peer review, or misconduct procedures where necessary.

Actions will be proportionate to the circumstances and intended primarily to protect the integrity and confidentiality of the editorial process.

23. Related Policies and References

24. Review and Updates

This policy was reviewed in September 2026. Because AI technologies, technical capabilities, privacy practices, and scholarly publishing standards continue to evolve rapidly, IJASCE will review this policy regularly and revise it when material developments require clarification or stronger safeguards.