INTELLECT JOURNAL • EDITORIAL & PUBLICATION ETHICS

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

Responsible use, transparent disclosure, confidentiality, and human accountability

Intellect: Indonesian Journal of Learning and Technological Innovation recognizes the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to support scholarly research, educational technology development, and manuscript preparation. The journal also recognizes the risks associated with inaccurate or fabricated information, undisclosed AI-generated content, bias, breaches of confidentiality, and misuse of research data.

This policy establishes requirements for authors, editors, Editorial Board members, peer reviewers, and publishing personnel. It complements the journal’s existing Publication Ethics, Authorship Criteria, Peer Review Process, Reviewers Guideline, Conflict of Interest, and Research Misconduct policies.

1. Purpose, Scope, and Definitions

For the purposes of this policy, AI-assisted tools include generative AI systems and large language models capable of producing or substantially transforming text, images, code, audio, video, data, or other content. The policy also applies to relevant AI-enabled systems used during research and editorial publishing workflows.

Routine spelling, punctuation, and grammar checks that do not generate substantive scholarly content are treated differently from generative or content-transforming AI. When a tool materially rewrites the text, develops arguments, summarizes sources, creates content, or influences analysis, the relevant use must be disclosed.

Use of AI as a research method or object of study—including machine learning, deep learning, learning analytics, intelligent tutoring systems, and computer vision—is not prohibited. Such use must be documented as part of the research methodology and assessed under the journal’s normal scientific and ethical standards.

2. Responsible Use of AI by Authors

Authors may use AI tools in a supporting capacity where doing so is lawful, methodologically appropriate, and consistent with research ethics. Acceptable supporting activities may include organizing ideas, improving clarity, assisting with coding, identifying possible literature, or supporting analysis, provided the authors independently verify the results and make the required disclosures.

• Human responsibility: All listed authors remain fully responsible for the originality, validity, accuracy, integrity, and final presentation of the manuscript. AI tools must not be listed or cited as authors or co-authors.
• Verification of sources and findings: Authors must verify all references, quotations, facts, numerical values, statistical interpretations, code, and AI-assisted outputs against reliable and traceable sources or original data. Fabricated or unverifiable citations are unacceptable. Generative AI tools and their outputs must not be cited as sources of scientific evidence. Authors must instead cite original, independently verifiable sources. When an AI system is itself investigated as part of the research, it must be identified appropriately in the Methods section.
• Intellectual contribution: Research questions, scholarly arguments, interpretation of results, and conclusions must reflect the authors’ own informed judgment. Unverified AI-generated text must not be presented as independently established evidence.
• Transparency: Authors must disclose substantive generative AI assistance in manuscript preparation and describe AI-based research procedures in the Methods section when relevant.
• Research ethics and intellectual property: Authors must observe consent, confidentiality, data protection, copyright, licensing conditions, and applicable research ethics approvals.

3. AI Use Disclosure and Manuscript Declarations

Authors must disclose any substantive use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies during manuscript preparation. The declaration should identify the tool or service (and version, where available), purpose, tasks performed, affected manuscript sections where relevant, and human verification. Routine spelling or punctuation correction alone does not require a generative AI disclosure.

The corresponding author should provide the disclosure at submission, update it if AI use changes during revision, and ensure that the final approved declaration appears under the heading Declaration of AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the published article PDF, preferably before the References section. Authors who did not use generative AI for substantive manuscript preparation should provide a brief no-use statement for clarity.

Where a study uses AI as a research method and generative AI also assists manuscript preparation, both disclosures are necessary. Statements must accurately reflect the work performed; authors should not submit a no-use declaration if AI was materially involved.

4. AI-Generated Figures, Images, Data, and Code

Figures, tables, illustrations, code, and other materials assisted or generated by AI must be accurate, relevant, appropriately attributed, and clearly distinguishable from genuine empirical observations. AI-generated or synthetic material must never be misrepresented as authentic participant data, field observations, or experimentally measured results.

• Any AI-generated illustrative image, diagram, or figure used in the manuscript must be disclosed where relevant, and the authors must verify that they hold the necessary rights to publish and reuse it.
• When synthetic data or AI-generated outputs are part of the research methodology, authors must identify them clearly and describe how they were generated, validated, and distinguished from observed data.
• AI-assisted programming, model development, or data analysis that materially affects the study must be documented sufficiently to permit critical evaluation and, where feasible, reproducibility.
• AI-assisted alteration, fabrication, or selective removal of observations, results, photographs, charts, or figures to mislead readers is prohibited.

5. Use of AI by Editors and Editorial Personnel

Editors and editorial personnel may use AI only for limited, legitimate supporting activities that protect author rights and preserve editorial independence. Any routine or substantive use of approved automated tools by the journal or publisher must be appropriately disclosed to authors and readers, including through the journal website.

• No substitution for editorial judgment: Editors must not use generative AI to evaluate manuscripts, produce scholarly assessments or recommendations, or decide whether to accept, revise, or reject a submission. Approved automated integrity-screening tools, such as similarity checks, may support editorial workflows only when their results are independently assessed by a responsible editor.
• Confidentiality: Editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, manuscript excerpts, review reports, author identities protected by the review process, or confidential editorial communications to public or unapproved AI services.
• Limited administrative support: Non-confidential tasks or the use of security-assessed, publisher-approved technical tools may be considered where appropriate, with documented human oversight and relevant disclosure.
• Verification and accountability: Editors remain responsible for investigating potential errors or biases in automated outputs and for making all final editorial decisions independently.

Any application of AI for editorial workflow support must remain consistent with the journal’s double-anonymous peer-review process, Publication Ethics, Conflict of Interest Policy, and Research Misconduct Policy. The use of a tool does not transfer accountability to its developer or operator.

6. Prohibition on AI Use by Peer Reviewers

In accordance with the journal’s peer-review rules and the 2026 Indonesian technical guidelines for scientific journal accreditation, reviewers are prohibited from:

• Using generative AI or AI-assisted applications to read, summarize, interpret, analyse, evaluate, or assess a submitted manuscript.
• Using AI to formulate, generate, rewrite, or substantively prepare peer-review comments, methodological critiques, scores, or recommendations to the editor.
• Entering, copying, uploading, or otherwise disclosing the manuscript or any part of it—including figures, tables, data, appendices, reviewer comments, or confidential editorial correspondence—to an AI application.
• Delegating any part of the confidential scientific evaluation or judgment to an AI system or unauthorized third party.

Reviewers must preserve manuscript confidentiality and notify the handling editor if they cannot complete the review independently. Review reports must be prepared without AI assistance. Reviewers who are unable to comply with this requirement must notify the handling editor and decline the assignment.

7. Confidentiality, Privacy, and Educational Research Data

Researchers working with educational data must take particular care when handling student records, learning analytics, classroom observations, voice recordings, facial images, or any other potentially identifiable information. Authors must not submit confidential third-party content or identifiable participant data to AI services without appropriate authorization, legal and ethical safeguards, and a valid basis for such processing.

Editors and reviewers must protect all unpublished submissions and confidential communications. The use of publicly available AI applications does not remove duties of confidentiality, consent, copyright compliance, or data protection.

8. Non-Compliance, Editorial Assessment, and Corrective Action

If the journal identifies credible concerns about undisclosed AI use, fabricated references, manipulated content, privacy breaches, or other potential misconduct, the editorial office will assess the available evidence and may request an explanation, source materials, data, or clarification from the authors.

Automated AI-detection scores or similarity reports will not be treated as conclusive proof of misconduct or used as the sole basis for rejecting a manuscript or imposing a sanction. Any decision must follow a fair, evidence-based assessment and allow the relevant party an appropriate opportunity to respond.

Depending on the findings, actions may include requesting corrected disclosures or content, additional methodological documentation, further independent assessment, declining a submission, or—after publication—issuing a correction, expression of concern, or retraction where justified. Serious concerns will be handled in accordance with the journal’s Research Misconduct and Publication Ethics procedures.

9. Policy Implementation and Related Information

This policy applies to manuscript preparation and submission, editorial handling, peer review, revision, and publication activities conducted after the policy is formally published by the journal. It should be read together with the journal’s other editorial and ethics policies. Editorial procedures and author templates should be updated to support the required AI declarations.

Policy and reference sources: Scopus Content Policy  ·  DOAJ AI Guidance  ·  ICMJE AI Recommendations  ·  Elsevier Journal AI Policy  ·  2026 Indonesian Accreditation Guidelines

Publisher: Yayasan Lembaga Studi Makwa (Makwa Foundation)
Journal: Intellect: Indonesian Journal of Learning and Technological Innovation