Generative AI Policy

Ahsana: Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat (Ahsana) recognizes the potential benefits of generative artificial intelligence (Generative AI) and AI-assisted technologies in supporting scholarly research and manuscript preparation. Such technologies, including large language models (LLMs), may assist authors in improving writing quality, organizing information, and performing specific research-related tasks.

However, the use of AI must not compromise originality, scientific accuracy, research integrity, transparency, or human accountability. AI-generated outputs may contain inaccurate information, fabricated references, biased interpretations, or misleading conclusions. Therefore, human supervision and critical evaluation are essential throughout the research and publication process.

This policy is informed by the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and establishes expectations for the responsible use of generative AI by authors, editors, and reviewers. It complements the journal's authorship, plagiarism, peer-review, and publication ethics policies.

1. General Principles and Human Accountability

The use of generative AI in scholarly work must remain under meaningful human supervision. AI tools may support research and writing activities, but they must not replace the intellectual judgment, critical thinking, scientific reasoning, and ethical responsibilities of human researchers.

Authors remain fully responsible for all aspects of their manuscripts, including any text, analyses, images, figures, code, or other materials produced or modified with AI assistance. Authors must review and validate AI-assisted content before including it in a submission.

Generative AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. Such tools cannot assume responsibility for research integrity, approve a manuscript for publication, disclose conflicts of interest, or fulfill the legal and ethical obligations associated with scholarly authorship.

All listed human authors must be able to explain, defend, and take responsibility for the methods, findings, interpretations, and conclusions presented in their work, regardless of whether AI assistance was used during its preparation.

2. Permitted Uses of Generative AI

Ahsana permits the responsible use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies when their application is consistent with scholarly integrity, appropriate disclosure, and the journal's editorial requirements.

Acceptable forms of AI assistance may include:

• Language and Writing Assistance: Improving grammar, clarity, readability, sentence structure, and academic expression without altering the intended scientific meaning.
• Brainstorming and Manuscript Organization: Supporting idea exploration, preparation of outlines, and organization of manuscript sections, subject to human evaluation.
• Drafting and Paraphrasing Assistance: Assisting with the preparation or revision of manuscript text, provided that authors critically review, verify, and take responsibility for the final content.
• Literature Summarization: Assisting in summarizing scientific literature, provided that authors consult the original sources and verify the accuracy of all interpretations and citations.
• Research and Data Analysis Assistance: Supporting coding, data processing, statistical analysis, or other methodological activities, provided that the procedures are scientifically justified, validated, and sufficiently documented for evaluation.
• Visualization and Illustration: Assisting in producing graphical materials where appropriate, provided that the origin of AI-generated content is disclosed, its accuracy is verified, and its use does not misrepresent research evidence.

Routine spelling, punctuation, grammar, and formatting checks that do not generate substantive research or manuscript content do not require a separate AI declaration. However, generative rewriting, substantial content production, or AI assistance affecting research methods, findings, or interpretations must be disclosed.

3. Transparency and AI Use Declaration

Authors must transparently disclose substantive use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in the preparation of their manuscripts or execution of their research.

The disclosure should identify:

• The name of the AI tool or service and its provider, including the model or version where available.
• The specific purpose for which the AI tool was used.
• The manuscript sections or research activities that involved AI assistance.
• The extent of AI involvement and the verification or validation undertaken by the human authors.

3.1. Declaration for Manuscript Preparation

When generative AI is used to produce or substantively revise manuscript text, authors must include a declaration under the heading "Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies" before the References section.

3.2. Disclosure of AI Use in Research Methods

When AI tools are used in research activities, such as data collection, data processing, coding, analysis, or visualization, authors must describe their use in the Methods section or another appropriate methodological section.

This description should explain the role of the AI tool, relevant procedures or settings, and the steps taken to evaluate or validate its output. Sufficient methodological detail should be provided to support scientific scrutiny and reproducibility where applicable.

The general declaration does not replace the need to report AI-assisted methodological procedures. Authors who did not use generative AI, or who used only routine non-substantive language-checking tools, are not required to provide an AI use declaration.

4. Accuracy, Research Integrity, and Confidentiality

Generative AI systems may produce persuasive but inaccurate outputs, including fabricated references, misleading descriptions, biased interpretations, and scientifically unsupported claims. Authors must therefore evaluate AI-assisted content critically before incorporating it into scholarly work.

Authors are required to:

• Verify Accuracy: Check factual claims, calculations, data interpretations, and other AI-generated information against reliable evidence.
• Validate References: Confirm that cited publications exist and accurately support the claims attributed to them. AI-generated references must not be accepted without verification.
• Prevent Plagiarism: Ensure that all manuscript content is original or appropriately attributed and does not infringe third-party rights.
• Maintain Research Integrity: Avoid fabricated data, falsified results, misleading images, or unsupported conclusions. Synthetic materials must not be misrepresented as authentic research observations.
• Evaluate Bias and Limitations: Consider the possibility of incomplete training data, contextual misunderstanding, biased outputs, and other methodological limitations.
• Protect Confidential Information: Avoid uploading confidential, identifiable, unpublished, or restricted research materials to external AI services without appropriate authorization and data protection safeguards.

AI outputs should not be treated as authoritative evidence or substitutes for original scholarly sources. Authors must consult and cite appropriate primary publications and other reliable materials to substantiate scientific claims.

5. Responsibilities of Editors and Reviewers

Editors and reviewers are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality, independence, and integrity of the editorial and peer-review process. Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential scholarly documents and must be handled accordingly.

Editors and reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, reviewer reports, or private editorial correspondence to publicly accessible generative AI services without appropriate authorization and safeguards protecting confidentiality, intellectual property, and personal data.

Peer-review evaluations and editorial decisions must remain under human responsibility. AI tools must not replace the independent scientific judgment of reviewers or the decision-making responsibilities of editors.

Where the use of AI-assisted tools in editorial or review activities is expressly permitted by the journal, such use must comply with confidentiality requirements, be transparently disclosed to the responsible editor, and remain subject to appropriate human verification.

Concerns regarding inappropriate or undisclosed AI use should be evaluated objectively. Automated AI-detection results alone should not be regarded as conclusive evidence of publication misconduct.

6. Non-Compliance and Editorial Actions

Failure to comply with this policy may raise concerns regarding transparency, authorship, originality, confidentiality, or research integrity. The Editorial Team will consider the nature and seriousness of any suspected violation before determining an appropriate response.

Depending on the circumstances, editorial actions may include:

• Requesting clarification or an AI use declaration from the authors.
• Requesting manuscript revisions, additional verification, or supporting documentation.
• Rejecting a manuscript when serious violations of research or publication ethics are substantiated.
• Issuing a correction or clarification when problems are identified after publication.
• Issuing an expression of concern or retraction when warranted by serious unresolved integrity concerns.

Editorial actions should be proportionate to the identified problem and based on documented evidence. Authors should ordinarily be given an opportunity to provide explanations or supporting information before a final adverse determination is made.

Undisclosed AI assistance does not automatically establish fabrication, plagiarism, or another serious violation. Its significance should be assessed in the context of the manuscript, the extent of AI involvement, and the potential effect on the reliability of the scholarly record.

7. Policy Review and Further Information

Ahsana recognizes that generative AI technologies and their applications in scholarly communication continue to evolve. This policy may be reviewed and updated periodically to reflect technological developments, emerging ethical concerns, and recognized standards of scholarly publishing.

Authors, reviewers, and editors are encouraged to consult the journal's relevant publication ethics policies and the COPE guidance on authorship and AI.