Generative AI Policy

ANP Journal of Social Science and Humanities (ANP-JSSH) recognizes that generative artificial intelligence tools are now part of scholarly research and publishing. This policy sets out how AI may and may not be used by the journal's editors, reviewers, and authors, in order to protect confidentiality, scientific integrity, and accountability for published work.

1. AI Policy for Editors

1.1 Policy Overview and Editorial Responsibilities. Editors are stewards of the scholarly record and must apply publication ethics consistently. AI tools may support administrative work but can never substitute for an editor's own professional judgment.

1.2 Manuscript Confidentiality and Technology Restrictions. Editors must never paste or upload manuscript text, data, figures, or any submission material into a generative AI system, as doing so risks breaching author confidentiality, intellectual property, and data-protection obligations. Non-sensitive administrative tasks (e.g., general correspondence drafting, language polishing of editorial communications) are not restricted in the same way.

1.3 Editorial Decision-Making and Professional Judgment. Decisions to accept, reject, or request revisions must be made by human editors exercising contextual and disciplinary judgment. AI-generated summaries or recommendations must never be treated as a substitute for that judgment, and editors remain fully accountable for every decision issued under their name.

1.4 Author AI Usage Oversight and Policy Compliance. Editors should check that authors have disclosed any generative AI use as required under Section 3, and should evaluate manuscripts on their scientific and scholarly merit rather than on whether AI tools were involved. Suspected undisclosed AI use, or any other suspected violation of this policy, should be raised with the Editor-in-Chief through the journal's official contact channel for review.

1.5 Publisher-Approved Technologies and Editorial Support. The journal may use vetted, privacy-preserving tools (e.g., for similarity/plagiarism screening) as a supplementary aid to editorial screening. These tools inform but never replace human editorial evaluation.

1.6 Professional Development and Policy Evolution. The editorial team will keep informed of developments in generative AI as they affect scholarly publishing, and this policy will be revised as norms and best practices evolve. Editors facing an ambiguous case should seek guidance from the Editor-in-Chief before proceeding.

2. AI Policy for Reviewers

2.1 Policy Overview and Reviewer Responsibilities. Peer reviewers safeguard the quality and integrity of published research and must maintain confidentiality, impartiality, and independent judgment throughout the review process.

2.2 Strict Confidentiality Requirements for AI Tools. Reviewers must not upload any part of a manuscript under review — title, abstract, methods, results, figures, tables, or supplementary materials — into a generative AI tool. Doing so risks breaching the confidentiality owed to authors and may violate copyright and data-protection obligations.

2.3 Review Report Confidentiality and AI Restrictions. A reviewer's own review report may reference details that could identify the manuscript or its authors, so review reports must not be processed through generative AI tools for any purpose, including language improvement. Reviewers are personally responsible for the content of their reports.

2.4 Scientific Evaluation and AI Limitations. Judging the soundness of a manuscript's design, methodology, analysis, and interpretation requires disciplinary expertise that current AI tools cannot supply. Reviewers must reach these judgments independently.

2.5 Author AI Disclosure and Detection. Where an author has disclosed AI-assisted language editing under this policy, reviewers should take that disclosure into account and continue to evaluate the manuscript on its scholarly merit. If a reviewer suspects undisclosed AI use, this should be flagged confidentially to the handling editor rather than investigated independently by the reviewer.

2.6 Publisher-Approved AI Technologies. Where the journal uses vetted tools (e.g., similarity checking) as part of the review workflow, these operate under editorial oversight and are not a substitute for reviewer judgment.

2.7 Compliance and Reporting. A reviewer who breaches this policy may be disqualified from further review assignments for the journal. Reviewers uncertain how this policy applies to a specific case should contact the editorial office before proceeding with their review.

3. AI Policy for Authors

3.1 Policy Overview. Authors may use generative AI tools as part of their research and writing process, but human oversight, disclosure, and full accountability for the resulting work are required at all times.

3.2 AI-Assisted Writing and Language Enhancement. Generative AI tools may be used to improve the readability, grammar, or language of a manuscript. They must not be used to generate substantive research content — such as original analysis, interpretation, or argumentation — without full author review. Any such assistance must be disclosed in a short declaration placed immediately before the reference list, stating which tool was used and for what purpose.

3.3 Authorship and Attribution Standards. A generative AI tool can never be listed as an author or co-author, and cannot be cited as an independent source of information. Every listed human author must consent to publication, approve the final manuscript, and take full responsibility for all its content, including any AI-assisted portions.

3.4 Image and Visual Content Restrictions. Generative AI must not be used to create, alter, or enhance photographs, figures, charts, or other visual research content in ways that could misrepresent the underlying data. Routine adjustments (e.g., brightness, contrast, cropping) remain acceptable provided they do not change what the image represents.

3.5 Research-Related AI Applications. Where AI tools are integral to the research itself (for example, automated text or image analysis as part of the study's method), this use is not restricted by this policy, but must be fully documented in the Methods section, including the tool's name, version, and role in the analysis, so the work remains reproducible.

3.6 Compliance and Verification. The editorial team reserves the right to request supporting files, raw data, or clarification where AI involvement in a submission is unclear, and may decline to publish visual content generated by AI without appropriate clearance and disclosure.

3.7 Enforcement. Failure to comply with this policy may result in a manuscript being rejected, or, if discovered after publication, in a correction or retraction. Authors with questions about how this policy applies to their submission should contact the Editor-in-Chief before submitting.