Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Edutech: Jurnal Teknologi Pendidikan recognises that generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, and other large language models) and AI-assisted technologies can support scholarly work. Their use must be transparent, responsible, and consistent with the COPE position on authorship and AI tools. This policy applies to authors, reviewers, and editors. Human beings remain fully accountable for all content and all decisions.

A. For Authors

  1. Authorship. AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors, because they cannot take responsibility for the work, approve the final version, or be held accountable. AI tools must not be cited as authors in the reference list.
  2. Permitted uses (with human oversight):
    • language polishing, grammar and spelling checks, and formatting;
    • summarising literature or brainstorming ideas, provided all sources are checked against the original publications;
    • data visualisation and coding assistance;
    • AI as a research tool or object of study (e.g., an AI-based learning application being evaluated), described in the Method section like any other software.
  3. Prohibited uses:
    • generating core intellectual content (e.g., research questions, interpretation of results, discussion, or conclusions) without substantial human revision;
    • creating, altering, or manipulating images, figures, or research data, unless AI is explicitly part of the research method and is fully described;
    • generating fabricated or unverified references, quotations, or data.
  4. Disclosure. Basic language-correction tools need no disclosure. Any other use must be stated in the Method section (or equivalent) and the Acknowledgements, naming the tool and version, the specific purpose, and the sections affected. If AI was used to generate results, tables, or figures, authors must also provide the prompts, dates, and outputs on request. Suggested statement: "Generative AI tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript as follows: [tool name/version] for [specific task, e.g., language editing of Section X]. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content."
  5. Responsibility. Authors are responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all content, including any AI-assisted parts, and for ensuring that no confidential or personal research data are entered into AI tools in breach of participants' consent or data-protection rules.

B. For Reviewers

  1. Confidentiality. Manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers must not upload a manuscript, or any part of it (text, data, figures, or the author's response letter), to generative AI tools or any external platform. This would breach the authors' confidentiality and may infringe their rights.
  2. Writing the review. The scientific assessment must be the reviewer's own work. AI must not be used to evaluate the manuscript or to draft review comments or recommendations. Reviewers may use basic language-correction tools to polish the wording of their own report only if no manuscript content is entered into the tool.
  3. Accountability. Reviewers are fully responsible for the content of their reports. Reviewers who suspect undisclosed or inappropriate AI use in a manuscript should inform the handling editor rather than act on suspicion alone.

C. For Editors and Editorial Staff

  1. Confidentiality. Editors must not upload submitted manuscripts, review reports, or correspondence to generative AI tools. Editorial correspondence may not be drafted from manuscript content using such tools.
  2. Editorial decisions. Decisions on desk rejection, reviewer selection, revision, acceptance, and rejection are made by human editors on the basis of academic merit. AI tools must not be used to make or recommend editorial decisions.
  3. Screening tools. The journal may use institutional similarity-checking (Turnitin) and AI-content detection tools within secure, journal-approved systems. Detection results are treated as an indication that needs human assessment, not as proof. No manuscript is rejected or retracted on the basis of a detection score alone; the author is given the opportunity to explain.
  4. Handling concerns. Undisclosed or inappropriate use of AI by authors, reviewers, or editors is handled under the journal's procedures for allegations of misconduct, following the COPE flowcharts. Outcomes may include requests for revision or disclosure, rejection, correction, retraction, removal from the reviewer pool, or notification of the person's institution.

The journal will review and update this policy as AI technologies and publishing standards develop.