This policy incorporates the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) position on AI and authorship, alongside the disclosure statement format widely adopted across scholarly publishing (including Elsevier's guidance for authors), for all journals owned and published by Yayasan Adra Karima Hubbi. This policy shall take effect beginning with the 2026 issue and shall apply to all subsequent publications.

Use of Large Language Models and Generative AI Tools in Writing Your Submission

All journals owned and published by Yayasan Adra Karima Hubbi recognize the benefits of utilizing large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, and generative AI as productivity tools for authors during the preparation of manuscripts. These tools may assist in generating initial ideas, structuring content, summarizing, paraphrasing, and refining language usage. However, it is essential to acknowledge that language models have inherent limitations and cannot replace human creativity, judgment, and critical thinking. Human oversight and substantive intellectual contribution remain indispensable to ensure the accuracy, integrity, and appropriateness of the content presented to readers.

Accordingly, all journals owned and published by Yayasan Adra Karima Hubbi require authors to observe the following considerations when using LLMs in their submissions:

Objectivity

LLM-generated text may contain previously published content with biases, including racism, sexism, or other biases. Minority viewpoints may not be adequately represented. The use of LLMs has the potential to perpetuate these biases since the information generated is decontextualized and harder to identify.

Accuracy

LLMs can produce false content, particularly when used beyond their domain or when addressing complex or ambiguous topics. They might generate linguistically plausible but scientifically implausible content, provide incorrect facts, and even generate nonexistent citations — a risk that extends to fabricated benchmark comparisons, incorrect complexity analyses, or plausible-looking but non-functional code snippets. Authors should independently verify any code, algorithms, or performance claims generated with AI assistance. Some LLMs may also lack access to recent data, resulting in an incomplete picture of current techniques and literature.

Contextual Understanding

LLMs struggle to apply human understanding to the context of a given text, especially when dealing with idiomatic expressions, sarcasm, humor, or metaphorical language. This can lead to errors or misinterpretations in the generated content.

Training Data

LLMs require a substantial amount of high-quality training data to achieve optimal performance. However, in certain domains or languages, such data may not be readily available, limiting the model's usefulness.

Guidance for Authors

Authors are required to:

• Clearly indicate the use of language models in their manuscripts, specifying which model was employed and for what purpose. This information should be provided in the methods or acknowledgments section, as appropriate.

• Verify the accuracy, validity, and appropriateness of the content and citations generated by language models, correcting any errors or inconsistencies that may arise — including testing and validating any AI-generated or AI-assisted source code before including it in a submission.
• Provide a list of sources used to generate content and citations, including those generated by language models. Authors should carefully review citations to ensure accuracy and proper referencing.
• Be aware of the potential for plagiarism when language models reproduce substantial text or code from other sources. Authors should cross-check the original sources to avoid plagiarizing others' work.
• Acknowledge the limitations of language models in their manuscripts, including the potential for bias, errors, and knowledge gaps.

Please note that AI bots such as ChatGPT should not be listed as authors in your submission. Appropriate corrective actions will be taken if published articles are identified with undisclosed use of such tools.

Editors and Reviewers

Maintaining the integrity of the editorial and peer review process requires reviewers and editors to uphold strict standards of confidentiality, objectivity, and accuracy at every stage of manuscript evaluation. With the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, including generative AI tools such as ChatGPT and similar systems, it is essential to establish clear ethical boundaries.

For reviewers, any manuscript submitted for peer review is confidential and must not be uploaded, shared, or processed using generative AI tools in any form — including uploading source code or datasets accompanying a submission. Reviewers are prohibited from using generative AI to write, structure, or assist in the preparation of review reports, and remain fully responsible and accountable for the content and conclusions of their evaluations.

For editors, all manuscripts and related editorial correspondence must be treated as confidential. Editors must not upload manuscripts, decision letters, or any editorial communications into generative AI tools, even for language refinement. Editorial decisions must be based on the editor's own professional evaluation and judgment, not on AI-generated output.

The use of AI technologies may be permitted for limited technical functions — such as plagiarism detection or formatting checks — provided that these tools do not access or process the scientific content of manuscripts directly, and are operated within secure, official systems adhering to established data privacy and ethical standards.

While we acknowledge and support the responsible use of emerging technologies, the scientific assessment of research and editorial decision-making remain fundamentally human responsibilities that must not be delegated to machines.

Further Information

Please see the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) recommendations on chatbots, ChatGPT, and scholarly manuscripts, and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s position statement on Authorship and AI tools.

This policy may be subject to further evolution as we collaborate with our publishing partners to understand how emerging technologies can facilitate or hinder the research publication process. Please revisit this page for the latest information.