International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal "Expert"
Generative AI Policy
Policy on the Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies
The International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal “Expert” recognises that generative artificial intelligence (Generative AI, GenAI) and AI-assisted technologies are increasingly used in academic writing, scholarly communication, editorial workflows, and digital publishing.
The Journal permits limited and transparent use of such technologies where this does not compromise originality, confidentiality, scholarly responsibility, publication integrity, or accountability.
This Policy applies to:
- authors;
- reviewers;
- editors;
- Editorial Board members;
- persons assisting with editorial or publication processes;
- other participants involved in the Journal’s scholarly publishing workflow.
This Policy governs the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in manuscript preparation, submission, peer review, editorial handling, and scholarly publishing.
It does not establish separate methodological requirements for research in which artificial intelligence is itself an object of study or a research instrument; such matters are assessed under the Journal’s applicable methodological, ethical, reporting, and publication requirements.
The Journal distinguishes clearly between:
- limited linguistic assistance during manuscript preparation;
- substantive generation or reformulation of scholarly content;
- technical or automated systems used for non-substantive editorial support;
- scholarly expertise, peer review, editorial assessment, assessment of research-integrity concerns, and editorial decision-making.
Core Non-Delegation Principle
Generative AI and AI-assisted systems must never be used to perform, generate, simulate, substitute for, or materially contribute to the substantive scholarly judgement required for scholarly expertise, peer review, editorial assessment, assessment of research-integrity concerns, or editorial decision-making.
Human review, verification, editing, approval, or confirmation of an AI-generated scholarly assessment does not make such use permissible.
Scientific interpretation, critical assessment, expert judgement, peer-review conclusions, assessment of research-integrity concerns, ethical evaluation, and editorial decisions must originate from and be made by accountable persons possessing the relevant responsibility and, where applicable, scholarly competence.
1. Core Principles
The Journal applies the following principles to the use of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies:
- authors remain fully responsible for all content submitted under their names;
- Generative AI cannot assume authorship, accountability, or scholarly responsibility;
- limited linguistic assistance may be used where transparently disclosed and where it does not replace substantive intellectual contribution by the author;
- substantive generation, substitution, or material reformulation of scholarly content by Generative AI is not permitted;
- confidential manuscripts and editorial materials must not be submitted to external Generative AI systems in a manner that compromises confidentiality, data protection, intellectual property, or publication integrity;
- reviewers and editors must not delegate scholarly assessment, expert judgement, or substantive reasoning to AI systems;
- authorised technical or automated systems may support legitimate non-substantive editorial functions but do not constitute scholarly expertise;
- outputs from automated or AI-based technical tools do not by themselves constitute findings of misconduct, scientific invalidity, lack of originality, or editorial unsuitability;
- substantive scholarly and editorial responsibility remains with the relevant authors, reviewers, editors, and other responsible persons.
2. Categories of AI Use
For the purposes of this Policy, the Journal distinguishes between the following categories of AI-assisted activity.
2.1 Limited Linguistic Assistance
Limited linguistic assistance includes use intended solely to improve:
- grammar;
- spelling;
- punctuation;
- linguistic clarity;
- readability;
- non-substantive language presentation.
Such assistance must not introduce new scholarly claims, interpretations, arguments, evidence, citations, conclusions, or intellectual content.
2.2 Substantive AI-Generated or AI-Reformulated Content
Substantive AI use includes generating, replacing, restructuring, or materially reformulating:
- scholarly arguments;
- theoretical reasoning;
- literature interpretation;
- methodological reasoning presented in the manuscript;
- research analysis;
- discussion;
- conclusions;
- scientific explanations;
- original academic contribution.
Such use is not permitted as a substitute for the author’s own scholarly work.
2.3 Technical or Automated Editorial Systems
Technical or automated systems may be used for non-substantive functions such as:
- similarity screening;
- technical validation;
- metadata processing;
- technical validation of the accessibility and integrity of submitted files;
- formatting checks;
- administrative workflow support.
Use of such systems does not constitute scholarly expertise, peer review, assessment of research-integrity concerns, or editorial judgement.
5. AI Use Disclosure
Every manuscript submitted to the Journal must contain an AI Use Disclosure in the Article Declarations block.
Where no Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were used in manuscript preparation, the declaration should state:
AI Use Disclosure: No generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were used in the preparation of this manuscript.
Where such technologies were used during manuscript preparation, the disclosure must identify, as applicable:
- the name of the tool or system;
- the purpose of its use;
- the nature of the assistance provided;
- the stage of manuscript preparation at which it was used;
- other information reasonably necessary to understand the role of the technology.
The existence of an AI Use Disclosure does not by itself imply inappropriate use.
The purpose of disclosure is transparency and accountability.
Where AI use changes materially during revision, the AI Use Disclosure must be updated accordingly.
6. Accuracy, Sources, Citations and Intellectual Responsibility
Authors are responsible for independently verifying all factual and bibliographic content included in a manuscript.
This includes:
- factual claims;
- quotations;
- references;
- citations;
- DOI information;
- source attribution;
- names;
- dates;
- numerical information;
- legal or regulatory references;
- other verifiable information.
AI-generated or AI-suggested references must not be included without verification against the original source.
Generative AI output must not be treated as a substitute for consulting and appropriately citing the original scholarly source.
Authors remain responsible for ensuring that citations accurately support the statements for which they are used.
Fabricated, materially inaccurate, or unverifiable references, citations, DOI records, quotations, or source attributions may raise concerns under the Journal’s Publication Ethics Policy irrespective of whether Generative AI was involved.
Related: Publication Ethics
8. Images, Data, Figures and Research Materials
Generative AI must not be used to fabricate, falsify, or misleadingly alter:
- research data;
- observations;
- measurements;
- experimental outcomes;
- participant information;
- figures;
- images;
- tables;
- analytical results;
- other research evidence presented in a manuscript.
AI-assisted manipulation of research materials must not distort, conceal, or misrepresent the underlying evidence.
Authors remain responsible for the authenticity, provenance, integrity, and appropriate presentation of research materials submitted for publication.
Nothing in this Section establishes separate methodological requirements for legitimate research in which artificial intelligence is itself an object of study or a research instrument. Such matters remain subject to the Journal’s applicable methodological, ethical, reporting, and publication requirements.
9. Use of AI During Revision and Post-Submission
This Policy applies throughout the editorial process and is not limited to the initial manuscript submission.
Authors must comply with the same requirements when preparing:
- revised manuscripts;
- responses to reviewers;
- responses to editors;
- supplementary files;
- revised tables or figures;
- additional materials submitted during editorial consideration.
Generative AI must not be used to generate substantive responses to reviewer or editor comments in place of the authors’ own scholarly assessment.
Authors remain personally responsible for every response submitted to the Journal.
Where AI-assisted technologies are first used, or their role materially changes, during revision, the AI Use Disclosure must be updated.
10. Use of AI by Reviewers
Peer review is a form of scholarly expertise and must not be delegated to Generative AI.
Reviewers must not use Generative AI to:
- conduct the scholarly assessment of a manuscript;
- analyse the scientific quality of a manuscript on their behalf;
- determine methodological validity;
- evaluate originality or scholarly contribution;
- generate an expert opinion;
- score or rank the manuscript as a substitute for reviewer judgement;
- formulate the substantive review;
- generate recommendations concerning acceptance, revision, or rejection;
- substitute for the reviewer’s own disciplinary expertise, critical reasoning, or professional judgement.
No AI-generated analysis, reasoning, critique, scoring, assessment, or recommendation may form part of the substantive peer-review evaluation, even where such output is subsequently reviewed, revised, edited, verified, or approved by the reviewer.
No AI-generated expert opinion may be submitted as a peer review or incorporated as a substitute for the reviewer’s own scholarly assessment.
Reviewers must not upload or disclose confidential editorial materials to external Generative AI or AI-assisted services, including:
- manuscripts;
- supplementary files;
- unpublished data;
- author responses;
- review forms;
- editorial correspondence;
- confidential reviewer instructions;
- other identifiable unpublished manuscript information.
The reviewer remains personally responsible for every assessment, criticism, recommendation, and statement submitted under their name.
Where a reviewer lacks the necessary expertise, the appropriate action is to decline or return the review assignment, not to compensate for the lack of expertise through Generative AI.
Related: Review Ethics · Guidelines for Reviewers
11. Use of AI by Editors and the Journal
Editorial assessment is a scholarly responsibility exercised by the competent editor.
Editors must not use Generative AI to:
- perform scientific evaluation of a manuscript;
- determine scholarly merit;
- assess methodological validity on their behalf;
- generate an editorial expert opinion;
- evaluate reviewer reports as a substitute for editorial judgement;
- determine whether research or publication misconduct has occurred;
- determine the scientific significance of an integrity concern;
- formulate or determine Accept, Revise, or Reject decisions on behalf of the editor;
- substitute for the expertise required to handle a manuscript or publication-ethics matter.
No AI-generated scientific analysis, methodological assessment, research-integrity assessment, scholarly evaluation, or editorial recommendation may form part of a substantive editorial determination, even where such output is subsequently reviewed, revised, edited, verified, or approved by an editor.
Generative AI must not be used as an editorial expert, scientific evaluator, research-integrity expert, peer-review substitute, or decision-maker.
Editors must not submit confidential manuscript content or confidential editorial materials to external Generative AI services where confidentiality, data protection, intellectual-property protection, or other required safeguards cannot be assured.
Where an editor does not possess the expertise required for a substantive assessment, the appropriate response is to involve an appropriately qualified reviewer, Editorial Board member, independent editor, or other qualified expert in accordance with Journal procedures.
Authorised Technical and Automated Systems
The Journal may use authorised technical or automated systems for legitimate non-substantive functions such as:
- similarity screening;
- technical checks;
- metadata validation;
- technical validation of the accessibility and integrity of submitted files;
- formatting validation;
- administrative support;
- workflow management.
Technical or automated systems may identify, organise, validate, compare, or flag information for editorial attention.
They must not be used to:
- determine scholarly merit;
- perform substantive scientific assessment;
- adjudicate methodological validity;
- establish research or publication misconduct;
- replace competent assessment of research-integrity concerns;
- recommend or determine an editorial outcome.
A technical indicator is information for assessment by the competent person; it is not scholarly expertise.
Related: Editorial Policies · Publication Ethics
12. Automated Screening and AI-Detection Tools
The Journal may use authorised automated tools to identify patterns or indicators that may warrant editorial attention.
Such tools may include:
- similarity-screening systems;
- automated technical checks;
- tools indicating possible AI-generated text;
- other authorised screening systems.
Automated output must be interpreted by a competent editor.
An automated or AI-detection score does not by itself establish:
- inappropriate AI use;
- plagiarism;
- fabrication;
- research misconduct;
- publication misconduct;
- lack of originality;
- grounds for rejection;
- grounds for post-publication action.
Where an automated indicator raises a substantive concern, the Journal may:
- review the relevant material;
- request clarification from the author;
- request or clarify an AI Use Disclosure;
- request supporting documentation;
- consider additional relevant evidence.
A finding is not made solely on the basis of an automated score, probability estimate, classifier output, or technical flag.
13. Undisclosed or Inappropriate AI Use
Potential undisclosed or inappropriate use of Generative AI is assessed in context.
The Journal may request:
- clarification from the author;
- an AI Use Disclosure;
- revision of affected material;
- relevant source information;
- supporting data or documentation;
- other information reasonably necessary to understand the matter.
Undisclosed AI use does not automatically constitute research or publication misconduct.
The Journal considers, as applicable:
- the nature of the AI use;
- whether disclosure was required;
- the extent of AI involvement;
- whether substantive scholarly contribution by the author was replaced;
- whether the integrity, originality, or reliability of the manuscript was affected;
- whether fabricated or misleading content was introduced;
- whether confidentiality, authorship, copyright, citation, or ethical requirements were violated.
Where the matter raises a publication-ethics concern, it is handled under the Journal’s Publication Ethics Policy and applicable editorial procedures.
14. Post-Publication AI-Related Concerns
Where possible inappropriate or undisclosed AI use is identified after publication, the Journal assesses whether the matter affects:
- accuracy;
- reliability;
- originality;
- authorship;
- attribution;
- source integrity;
- research integrity;
- ethical compliance;
- the legitimacy of the published scholarly record.
The existence of AI involvement does not by itself require correction or retraction.
Where post-publication action is warranted, the appropriate measure is determined under the Journal’s Corrections, Retractions, Expressions of Concern and Article Removal Policy.
Depending on the circumstances, possible actions may include:
- no further action;
- clarification;
- correction;
- update of an AI Use Disclosure;
- another appropriate correction of the publication record;
- Expression of Concern;
- retraction where the applicable criteria are satisfied.
Complaints concerning the Journal’s handling of such matters and appeals falling within the applicable scope are governed by the Complaints and Appeals Policy.
Related: Corrections, Retractions, Expressions of Concern and Article Removal Policy · Complaints and Appeals
15. Relationship with Other Journal Policies and External Guidance
This Policy forms part of the integrated editorial governance framework of the International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal “Expert”.
It should be read together, where relevant, with the Journal’s:
- Publication Ethics Policy;
- Editorial Policies;
- Review Ethics;
- Guidelines for Reviewers;
- Publication Conditions / Author Guidelines;
- Corrections, Retractions, Expressions of Concern and Article Removal Policy;
- Complaints and Appeals Policy.
The Generative AI Policy determines what forms of AI use within the scholarly publishing process are permitted, restricted, prohibited, or subject to disclosure.
Publication Conditions determine where and how the required AI Use Disclosure is presented.
Publication Ethics governs the assessment of potential ethical concerns.
Editorial Policies define editorial authority and responsibility for scientific assessment and editorial decision-making.
Review Ethics and Guidelines for Reviewers govern reviewer conduct, responsibility, competence, and confidentiality.
Post-publication consequences are determined under the applicable Corrections, Retractions, Expressions of Concern and Article Removal Policy.
Complaints and appeals are governed separately by the Complaints and Appeals Policy.
This Policy does not create separate methodological requirements for research in which artificial intelligence is itself an object of study or a research instrument.
In developing and applying this Policy, the Journal may refer, where relevant, to internationally recognised guidance concerning responsible use of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in scholarly publishing.
Such external guidance does not replace the Journal’s own policies, institutional responsibility, or requirement for qualified scholarly judgement.
16. Policy Governance and Review
This Policy is owned by the Editorial Board of the International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal “Expert” and approved by the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board.
The Policy is reviewed periodically and may be revised in response to:
- developments in Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies;
- emerging risks relating to research and publication integrity;
- changes in internationally recognised scholarly-publishing guidance;
- changes in Journal editorial procedures;
- developments relating to confidentiality, data protection, copyright, or intellectual property;
- operational experience arising from application of the Policy.
Material revisions are identified through the version number and review date displayed at the beginning of this Policy.