Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Policy

JOURNAL POLICY / PUBLICATION INTEGRITY

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Policy

Transparent author disclosure, accountable editorial oversight, and independent human peer review.

APLIKATIF — Journal of Research Trends in Social Sciences and Humanities

OUR COMMITMENT

APLIKATIF: Journal of Research Trends in Social Sciences and Humanities recognizes that artificial intelligence (AI) can support legitimate scholarly work, while creating risks involving inaccurate information, fabricated references, undisclosed assistance, confidentiality, intellectual property, and research integrity.

This policy applies to authors, editors, reviewers, and personnel involved in manuscript production. It aligns with the transparency principles of COPE and ICMJE and sets an explicit restriction on reviewers' use of AI during peer review, consistent with Indonesian journal accreditation guidance under Decree No. 374/DST/D.D1/HM.01.01/2026. Human contributors remain responsible for scholarly content and publication decisions.

01 / AUTHORS

Disclose AI-assisted work

Any substantive AI assistance must be declared, identified, and verified by the authors.

02 / EDITORS

Restricted, supervised use

Approved technical assistance only; no delegation of scientific or editorial judgment.

03 / REVIEWERS

AI use prohibited in peer review

Reviewers must personally assess manuscripts without AI-assisted reviewing.

01 / SCOPE AND PRINCIPLES

Scope and Human Accountability

For this policy, AI-assisted tools include generative systems, large language models, image or audio generators, and AI-based applications that create, summarize, transform, translate, classify, or analyze scholarly content. The policy applies whether such systems are accessed through a website, an application, a browser extension, or an integrated software feature.

Ordinary non-generative spell-checking, reference-manager functions, and conventional formatting tools do not normally require an AI declaration. When a tool produces substantive content or performs AI-driven scholarly analysis, the relevant use must be disclosed.

Guiding principle

An AI system cannot be credited as an author, replace human accountability, or independently establish the validity of data, interpretation, references, or editorial decisions.

02 / AUTHORS

Permitted Assistance and Author Responsibilities

Authors may use AI tools for limited assistance such as language refinement, translation, outlining, coding support, preliminary literature organization, transcription, or analytic support when such use is lawful, ethically appropriate, disclosed, and independently checked. Use of AI as a method or research instrument must also be reported sufficiently for readers to evaluate the study.

Authors retain full responsibility for the originality, accuracy, data, analytical decisions, interpretations, and conclusions of the submitted work.
Every factual claim, quotation, DOI, and bibliographic citation included with AI assistance must be checked against reliable original sources.
AI-generated images, synthetic data, fictional interviews, or simulated observations must never be presented as authentic empirical evidence.
The use of AI must respect copyright, informed consent, privacy, institutional ethics requirements, and applicable laws.

The use of AI does not compensate for insufficient data, inadequate analysis, or failure to meet the journal's methodological and ethical standards.

03 / DISCLOSURE

Mandatory AI Use Declaration

Disclosure is mandatory when AI or AI-assisted technology materially contributes to the manuscript's writing, translation, generated visuals, research coding, data collection, transcription, analysis, or interpretation. Authors must disclose such use when submitting the manuscript and maintain the declaration in the final accepted version.

Identify the tool or platform and developer; include the model or version where known.
Explain precisely what the tool was used for and which stage or component of the work it affected.
Describe human checks and corrections undertaken for the output.
When AI is part of the research method, document its role in the Methods section, including sufficient procedural detail to evaluate or reproduce the analysis when appropriate.

Place an AI Use Declaration in the manuscript, preferably with the other declarations before the references. If AI meaningfully affected data processing or analysis, also explain its use in the Methods section. The declaration must be updated if relevant use changes during revision.

Example: AI assistance disclosed

"During manuscript preparation, the authors used [tool name, developer/model] to [specific task]. The authors reviewed and verified the outputs and take full responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the manuscript."

Example: no AI assistance

"The authors declare that no generative AI or AI-assisted tools were used in preparing this manuscript."

04 / RESEARCH INTEGRITY

Authorship, Evidence, and Confidential Data

AI tools must not be listed as authors or corresponding authors. They cannot approve a manuscript, assume responsibility for research integrity, give consent, or disclose conflicts of interest.

Authors must not include invented citations, altered evidence, unverified claims, undisclosed AI-generated substantial text, or fabricated material. Any AI-assisted visuals or transcriptions used as research materials must be described and labeled accurately, with appropriate permissions and safeguards.

Authors must not upload confidential participant data, unpublished third-party materials, copyrighted content without appropriate authority, or personally identifiable research data to external AI systems without a lawful basis and the required consent or ethics authorization.

05 / EDITORS

Restricted AI Use in Editorial Work

Editors may use journal-approved tools for limited administrative or technical assistance, such as formatting checks, bibliographic validation, or similarity screening, provided confidentiality is protected and the results are independently verified by a responsible editor.

AI must not be used to replace human editorial assessment of novelty, methodological rigor, evidentiary adequacy, scholarly contribution, or suitability for publication.
AI-generated editorial decisions, substantive manuscript evaluations, acceptance recommendations, or author-facing critique may not substitute for an editor's independent judgment.
Editors must not upload confidential submissions, peer-review reports, reviewer identities, or unpublished research data to unapproved AI systems or services where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Any journal-authorized AI-assisted copyediting or production process involving manuscript content must be communicated transparently to the affected authors and meet applicable confidentiality and consent requirements.

The Editor-in-Chief remains accountable for editorial oversight. The journal must document any approved AI-based editorial workflows and ensure that commercial relationships or tool recommendations do not determine publication decisions.

06 / PEER REVIEWERS

Prohibition of AI-Assisted Peer Review

Peer reviewers are prohibited from using generative AI or other AI-assisted systems to conduct any part of the manuscript review. This restriction includes summarizing or translating the submission, assessing methods or arguments, analyzing results, checking novelty through AI-assisted interpretation, drafting or rewriting reviewer comments, scoring the manuscript, or recommending an editorial decision.

Reviewers must not upload, paste, or otherwise disclose any part of a manuscript, supplementary file, review correspondence, or confidential editorial information to an AI service. Reviewer reports must reflect the reviewer's own independent examination and reasoning.

Routine non-AI word processing and manual reference checking remain permissible. A reviewer who cannot complete the review without prohibited AI assistance should decline the assignment or notify the handling editor promptly.

Non-negotiable peer-review standard

Disclosure of AI use does not make AI-assisted peer review permissible under this journal policy. The prohibition applies throughout the review process.

07 / EDITORIAL RESPONSE

Verification, Non-Disclosure, and Possible Action

Editors will examine credible concerns about undisclosed or inappropriate AI use proportionately. They may request an updated disclosure, information about the tool and its role, clarification of methods, underlying sources, or supporting data. The opportunity to provide an explanation will be given before a serious adverse decision where practicable.

An automated AI-detection score is not sufficient, by itself, to establish misconduct. Editorial judgments must rely on independently assessable evidence and the nature and consequences of the suspected violation.

Depending on the circumstances, editorial action may include a corrected declaration, manuscript revision, further review, rejection for a serious unresolved breach, or referral under the Research Misconduct Policy. Concerns about already published articles will be handled through the Correction and Retraction Policy.

08 / GOVERNANCE

Implementation and Related Policies

All persons involved in publication must protect confidential manuscripts, unpublished research data, peer-review correspondence, and personal information. The editorial team will maintain appropriate documentation of AI-use disclosures, approved workflows, significant concerns, and decisions where relevant.

This policy operates alongside the journal's Publication Ethics, Conflict of Interest Policy, Peer Review Process, and relevant research-integrity policies. It may be revised as technology, ethics guidance, or Indonesian accreditation standards develop.

Questions or reports concerning AI use in a submission or published article may be sent to jurnalaplikatif@gmail.com.

EDITORIAL WORKFLOW

From disclosure to editorial oversight

Authors declare any substantive AI use when submitting the manuscript.
Editors verify disclosures and independently assess scholarly and ethical standards.
Reviewers assess the manuscript personally, without AI assistance.
Any unresolved concern is assessed with evidence, explanation, and appropriate follow-up.

EDITORIAL CORRESPONDENCE