This policy governs the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI), large language models, chatbots, AI-assisted coding systems, and synthetic image or media tools in preparing, reviewing, editing, and publishing work submitted to IJISTECH. It applies to authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial contributors.

AI systems cannot be named as authors, co-authors, or accountable contributors. Human authors must take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, integrity, legality, and appropriate attribution of all submitted content, including materials developed with AI assistance. AI outputs must be critically checked for factual errors, fabricated citations, bias, copyright concerns, and unsupported claims.

Generative AI may support legitimate activities such as language editing, translation, code assistance, literature discovery, data analysis, visualization, or research workflows when its role is transparent, the outcomes are independently verified, and necessary permissions and safeguards are observed.

Authors must not use AI to fabricate or falsify observations, experimental results, citations, reviewer responses, participant information, or images presented as genuine evidence. Synthetic data or AI-generated visual materials may be included only where scientifically justified, accurately labeled, and described sufficiently for readers to understand their origin and limitations.

Authors must disclose substantive generative AI assistance at submission and in the manuscript. The disclosure should identify the tool/provider, version or access date where available, the purpose of use, the affected part of the work, and the extent of human verification. AI use for writing or rewriting may be described in the acknowledgments; AI contributions to data processing, analysis, software, or figures should be reported in the methods or an equivalent section.

Conventional non-generative spelling or formatting checks normally do not require a separate disclosure; generative AI-assisted rewriting, analysis, coding, or content creation does.

“During preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [AI tool/provider and version, if available] for [specific purpose and manuscript components]. The authors reviewed, verified, and edited all AI-assisted output and take full responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the final manuscript.”

This statement is a template, not a claim that AI was used. Authors should adapt it to actual use and add detailed methodological information where necessary.

Authors must not enter confidential, personally identifiable, unpublished third-party, copyrighted, or otherwise restricted research materials into external AI systems without a lawful basis, appropriate permission, and safeguards. Authors must verify references against genuine sources; an AI-generated answer is not a substitute for citing primary literature. All required ethics approvals, data permissions, copyright licenses, and research integrity duties continue to apply.

Peer reviewers must provide their own expert judgments and must not submit unpublished manuscripts, supplementary files, datasets, or review reports to external generative AI services where confidentiality cannot be assured. Any proposed AI-assisted reviewing must first be authorized by the journal and must comply with its confidentiality requirements. Permitted assistance must be disclosed to the editor and independently checked. AI-generated reviews must not replace human evaluation.

Editors and editorial staff are responsible for protecting confidential submissions, using AI-assisted tools only where editorially authorized and appropriately safeguarded, and verifying any AI-assisted administrative or editorial output. Editorial decisions, ethical investigations, and scientific assessments remain the responsibility of qualified human editors. Any relevant use of AI within editorial processing should be transparent to affected parties.

Undisclosed material AI use, fabricated content, false citations, confidentiality breaches, or misrepresentation of AI-generated materials may result in requests for clarification or correction, rejection before publication, or post-publication action in accordance with the journal’s ethics and retraction procedures. Automated AI-detection scores alone are not conclusive evidence of misconduct; editorial assessment should consider documented facts and provide an opportunity for an appropriate response.