JESS | RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND RESPONSIBLE TECHNOLOGY

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Usage Policy

JESS (Journal of Education on Social Science) recognizes the growing role of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in academic research, scholarly writing, editorial management, and scientific publishing. The journal supports the responsible and transparent use of AI-assisted technologies while maintaining the principles of human accountability, research integrity, scholarly originality, editorial independence, confidentiality, and ethical publication.

PRINCIPLES OF RESPONSIBLE AI USE

1. Purpose and Scope

This policy establishes principles and responsibilities governing the use of AI-assisted technologies in research activities, manuscript preparation, peer review, editorial evaluation, and scholarly publication at JESS.

The policy applies to authors, co-authors, corresponding authors, peer reviewers, editors, Editorial Board members, editorial staff, and other individuals involved in the journal's publication processes.

AI-assisted technologies include generative AI systems, large language models (LLMs), chatbots, automated writing assistants, AI-based translation tools, image-generation systems, coding assistants, and AI-supported research or analytical applications.

The use of AI technology is not prohibited in principle. However, its application must be appropriate to the scholarly task, sufficiently transparent, ethically responsible, and consistent with the journal's authorship, research integrity, and publication policies.

2. Permitted and Restricted Uses of AI

JESS distinguishes between routine technical assistance, substantive AI-assisted scholarly activities, and applications that are incompatible with responsible research and publication.

These categories should be interpreted in relation to the nature, extent, and consequences of AI assistance. Authors remain responsible for demonstrating that any AI-supported activity does not undermine the authenticity, reliability, or scientific contribution of their research.

3. AI and Scholarly Authorship

Artificial intelligence systems, including large language models and generative AI tools, cannot be listed as authors or co-authors of manuscripts submitted to JESS.

Scholarly authorship requires meaningful intellectual contributions, approval of the final manuscript, responsibility for research integrity, and accountability for the published work. AI systems cannot satisfy these responsibilities.

Human authors retain full responsibility for manuscripts prepared with AI assistance, including the accuracy of statements, validity of analysis, authenticity of evidence, originality of content, completeness of citations, and compliance with ethical and legal requirements.

AI assistance must not be used to conceal the contributions of human researchers or misrepresent the authorship of the submitted work.

4. Disclosure of AI Use by Authors

Authors must disclose substantive use of AI-assisted technologies in the preparation, conduct, analysis, or reporting of research submitted to JESS.

Disclosure should be provided at manuscript submission, including in the cover letter or appropriate submission documentation, and in the relevant section of the manuscript.

A meaningful AI disclosure should identify:

1. The name of the AI tool or system used;
2. The provider or developer, where relevant;
3. The purpose for which the technology was used;
4. The stage of research or manuscript preparation affected;
5. The nature and extent of AI-generated or AI-assisted content;
6. The verification or validation procedures performed by the authors;
7. Any methodological limitations or risks associated with its use.

AI assistance involving research design, data processing, coding, interpretation, statistical analysis, or figure generation should be explained in the Methods section or another suitable methodological section.

Substantive assistance with manuscript drafting, rewriting, or translation should be disclosed in an AI Use Declaration or Acknowledgments section, as appropriate.

5. AI in Research Design, Data Collection, and Analysis

JESS recognizes that AI technologies may contribute to legitimate research activities, including document classification, coding assistance, computational analysis, pattern identification, and the development of analytical tools.

Authors using AI for research activities must:

• Explain how AI was incorporated into the research methodology;
• Identify the data sources and analytical procedures involved;
• Provide sufficient methodological information for scholarly assessment;
• Evaluate the reliability, consistency, and limitations of AI-generated outputs;
• Apply appropriate human verification and validation;
• Protect confidential research information and personal data;
• Clearly distinguish empirical evidence from simulated or synthetic material.

AI-assisted qualitative coding, thematic classification, or interpretation must not be presented as inherently reliable merely because the analysis was produced by an automated system. Authors should explain their analytical approach, validation procedures, and the role of human researchers in interpreting the findings.

Simulated respondents, AI-generated interviews, synthetic field observations, or fabricated institutional records must not be presented as genuine empirical data collected from human participants or actual organizations.

Where synthetic data or simulations are legitimate components of the research design, their artificial nature, generation procedures, assumptions, and methodological limitations must be disclosed explicitly.

6. Accuracy, References, and Intellectual Property

Authors must independently verify factual statements, scholarly references, numerical information, research findings, and interpretations generated or suggested by AI systems.

AI-generated references may contain nonexistent publications, inaccurate author names, incorrect titles, invalid DOI numbers, or misleading descriptions of published research. Such information must be checked against authentic scholarly sources before inclusion in a manuscript.

Authors must not:

• Use fabricated references or unverifiable citations;
• Attribute unsupported claims to genuine publications;
• Present AI-generated text as evidence from an external scholarly source;
• Reproduce copyrighted materials without appropriate authorization;
• Conceal the source or artificial origin of substantive generated content;
• Use AI to create misleading tables, quotations, figures, or statistical findings.

AI-generated content must comply with the journal's originality, plagiarism, citation, copyright, and licensing requirements. Authors remain responsible for obtaining appropriate permissions and ensuring that the submitted manuscript does not infringe the rights of others.

7. Confidentiality, Privacy, and Data Protection

Authors, reviewers, and editors must consider the confidentiality and data-protection implications of uploading research information to external AI systems.

Particular care is required when handling:

• Personal information about research participants;
• Unpublished manuscripts and confidential research findings;
• Interview transcripts and identifiable qualitative data;
• Restricted government or institutional documents;
• Proprietary datasets and protected intellectual property;
• Confidential reviewer reports and editorial correspondence;
• Other sensitive or legally protected research materials.

Sensitive or confidential information must not be submitted to external AI platforms unless the use is authorized, legally permissible, and supported by appropriate privacy, confidentiality, and data-security safeguards.

Authors should evaluate whether an AI service stores submitted data, shares information with third parties, or uses uploaded material for model training. Anonymization and other safeguards should be applied where appropriate, but anonymization alone does not automatically eliminate all disclosure or privacy risks.

8. Use of AI by Peer Reviewers

Peer review is a confidential scholarly responsibility. Reviewers must maintain independent academic judgment and must not delegate their responsibility for manuscript evaluation to AI systems.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, supplementary files, unpublished datasets, author-identifying information, or confidential editorial communications to external AI platforms where confidentiality cannot be assured, unless the use has been explicitly authorized and appropriate safeguards are in place.

Reviewers are expected to:

• Conduct scholarly evaluations independently;
• Protect unpublished manuscript information;
• Follow the journal's AI usage and confidentiality requirements;
• Seek editorial permission before using AI to assist substantive review work;
• Disclose any authorized AI assistance to the handling editor;
• Verify the accuracy and appropriateness of AI-assisted review content;
• Remain responsible for every recommendation and statement in the review report.

Routine language correction of a reviewer's own independently prepared comments may be acceptable when confidentiality is preserved. However, reviewers must not use AI systems to generate a substantive evaluation in place of their own scholarly assessment.

Reviewers who are uncertain whether an AI application is permitted should contact the handling editor before using the technology.

9. Use of AI by Editors and Editorial Staff

Editors and editorial staff may use appropriate AI-assisted technologies for limited administrative, technical, or language-support activities when such use is authorized and consistent with the journal's confidentiality, ethical, and institutional requirements.

AI-assisted applications must not be treated as independent decision-makers in manuscript screening, reviewer selection, research integrity assessment, or editorial acceptance and rejection decisions.

Editors must ensure that:

• Editorial decisions are made by qualified human editors;
• Confidential manuscript materials are not exposed to unauthorized AI systems;
• AI-generated recommendations are critically verified;
• Potential algorithmic errors and biases are considered;
• Any substantive AI assistance in editorial processes is appropriately documented;
• Authors are informed when AI is used in ways that materially affect the handling or production of their manuscripts;
• Responsibility for editorial outcomes remains with the journal's authorized personnel.

The Editor-in-Chief and designated editors retain full responsibility for ensuring that AI-assisted activities do not compromise fairness, confidentiality, editorial independence, or the integrity of scholarly publication.

10. AI Detection and Research Integrity Assessment

The journal recognizes that automated AI-content detection tools may produce inaccurate results and should not be treated as conclusive evidence of inappropriate AI use or research misconduct.

An AI-detection score, probability estimate, or automated classification must not independently determine manuscript rejection, allegations of misconduct, or sanctions against an author.

Where concerns arise, editors should conduct a contextual evaluation, consider the nature of the suspected problem, examine relevant evidence, and provide the authors with a reasonable opportunity to explain their research and manuscript preparation procedures.

Editorial assessment should focus on verifiable issues such as fabricated references, inaccurate data, unsupported findings, inadequate disclosure, plagiarism, or demonstrable breaches of research and publication ethics.

11. Non-Disclosure and Inappropriate AI Use

Failure to disclose material AI assistance may constitute a breach of publication requirements, particularly when the omission conceals substantive content generation, data manipulation, or other practices that affect the reliability and integrity of the manuscript.

When inappropriate or undisclosed AI use is suspected, the editorial team may:

1. Request clarification from the authors;
2. Ask for a corrected AI Use Declaration;
3. Request supporting methodological documentation;
4. Seek independent assessment when necessary;
5. Require manuscript revision or correction;
6. Suspend manuscript evaluation while a material concern is examined;
7. Reject a manuscript where significant ethical or scientific deficiencies are established;
8. Take appropriate post-publication action where justified by the evidence.

Editorial responses should be proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the concern. Incomplete disclosure does not automatically establish fabrication, plagiarism, or intentional research misconduct.

Any formal investigation or post-publication response should follow the journal's applicable Publication Ethics, Research Misconduct, and Correction and Retraction policies.

12. Standard AI Use Declaration

Authors should include an accurate declaration when substantive AI assistance has been used. The following examples are provided to support consistent and transparent reporting.

These declarations are examples and must be adapted to describe the actual circumstances of each manuscript. Authors must not use a no-AI declaration when substantive AI assistance has occurred. Additional methodological details should be supplied whenever necessary to permit meaningful scholarly assessment.

13. Commitment to Responsible and Transparent AI Use

JESS supports the responsible use of emerging technologies that can contribute to research quality, methodological innovation, accessibility, and scholarly communication.

The journal also recognizes that the use of AI introduces important responsibilities concerning research authenticity, accuracy, transparency, intellectual property, data privacy, and human accountability.

AI technologies should support rather than replace independent scholarly inquiry, critical reasoning, methodological rigor, and responsible editorial judgment. The journal seeks to maintain these principles as AI technologies and scholarly publishing practices continue to evolve.

14. Supporting Standards and Guidelines

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Updated January 2026. Section V: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Publishing.
ICMJE AI Recommendations

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Authorship and AI Tools: COPE Position Statement.
https://doi.org/10.24318/cCVRZBms

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
COPE Core Practices.
COPE Core Practices

15. AI Policy Inquiries

Authors, reviewers, and editors seeking clarification regarding the use of AI-assisted technologies in scholarly work and publication are encouraged to contact the JESS editorial office.

JESS Editorial Office

Faculty of Social Science
Universitas Negeri Padang
Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia

Email:
journaljessfis@gmail.com

Contact the Editorial Office →

JESS (Journal of Education on Social Science)

Published by the Faculty of Social Science, Universitas Negeri Padang, Indonesia

Print ISSN: 2622-0741 | Electronic ISSN: 2550-0147