Artificial Intelligence Policy

Science Insights acknowledges that Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly woven into the way researchers write, analyze, and prepare academic work. Because these tools can influence the accuracy, originality, and credibility of published science, the journal has established the following guidelines to ensure that AI is used in a manner consistent with sound scholarly practice.
This document governs how AI may be used by anyone involved in the publication process: contributing authors, reviewers assigned to evaluate submissions, editorial board members, and in-house editorial personnel.

Defining Artificial Intelligence Tools

For the purposes of this policy, an "AI tool" refers to any computational system capable of producing, modifying, condensing, translating, or otherwise shaping content with minimal direct human authorship. This covers, among others:

• Large language model chatbots (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot)
• Automated grammar and style correction engines
• Machine-translation platforms
• Image- and figure-generating AI systems
• AI-driven statistical or analytical software
• Any comparable present or future generative technology

Permitted Applications

Science Insights does not object to AI being used as a supporting tool, provided its role stays auxiliary rather than central to the intellectual contribution. Acceptable applications include:

• Polishing sentence structure, spelling, and grammar
• Improving the flow and readability of a draft
• Converting text between languages
• Helping troubleshoot or write computer scripts
• Reformatting or organizing datasets
• Generating preliminary ideas during the planning stage

Whatever AI produces in these areas must be thoroughly checked and corrected by the human author before it forms part of a submission.

Human Accountability Cannot Be Outsourced

No matter how AI is used during preparation of a manuscript, the human contributors carry complete and undivided accountability for:

• Truthfulness and correctness of stated facts
• Soundness of reported data and findings
• Originality of the written work
• Accurate referencing of all sources drawn upon
• Adherence to applicable research-ethics requirements

Reliance on an AI system at any stage does not lessen this accountability in the slightest.

Declaring AI Involvement

Whenever AI contributes meaningfully to the development of a manuscript, this fact must be openly declared rather than left unmentioned. The declaration should specify:

• Which AI system was used
• For what specific task it was employed
• How significant its role was in shaping the final text

Sample wording:

"Portions of this manuscript's language were refined using Grammarly AI. The authors reviewed every suggested change and accept full accountability for the published content."

As a general rule, if there is uncertainty about whether something needs declaring, authors should err toward disclosing it.

AI Is Ineligible for Authorship Credit

Under no circumstances will an AI program be recognized as an author or co-author. This stems from several practical and ethical realities:

• An AI cannot be held legally liable for mistakes or misconduct
• It cannot provide informed consent to authorship
• It cannot review and formally approve a final draft
• It possesses no capacity for independent accountability
• Genuine authorship demands intellectual judgment that only a person can exercise

Authorship credit is reserved strictly for individuals who satisfy conventional authorship requirements.

Prohibited and Unethical Uses of AI

The following behaviors represent serious breaches of this policy and of academic integrity more broadly:

• Inventing data or experimental outcomes using AI
• Producing analyses or conclusions that misrepresent reality
• Manufacturing references or citations that do not genuinely exist
• Creating altered or deceptive visual evidence
• Distorting authentic findings through AI manipulation
• Drafting peer-review reports dishonestly via AI without genuine evaluation
• Deliberately omitting disclosure of substantial AI contribution
• Presenting AI-produced material as purely human-authored work

Violations may lead to outright rejection, mandatory revision, retraction following publication, or referral for further institutional review.

Use of AI Within the Research Process

If AI played a functional role within the study's methodology, rather than simply assisting with writing, authors are obligated to report:

• The exact AI system and, if relevant, its version
• The function it served within the research design
• Configuration details, prompts, or parameters applied
• Any constraints or potential biases this may have introduced

This level of detail is necessary so that other researchers can properly interpret, and where feasible, replicate the work.

AI-Generated Visual Content

For any figure, illustration, or graphic generated or substantially modified with AI assistance, authors must:

• Mark it explicitly as AI-generated or AI-modified
• Verify that no copyright or licensing restriction has been violated
• Ensure the visual faithfully reflects genuine data rather than fabricated impressions
• Supply a brief explanation of how the image was produced

The editorial office retains the right to request further clarification regarding any such material.

Maintaining Confidentiality in Peer Review

Reviewers handling manuscripts on behalf of Science Insights must observe the following safeguards:

• Never input manuscript text, data, or supplementary files into public-facing AI platforms
• Avoid using AI to generate review commentary without the journal's explicit prior consent
• Treat all material under review as strictly confidential throughout the process
• Understand that misuse of confidential content via AI constitutes a serious ethical breach

Role of AI in Editorial Decisions

Editorial staff may rely on AI for supportive functions such as managing submission workflows, conducting preliminary language checks, or organizing administrative tasks.
That said:

• The substantive decision to accept, revise, or reject a manuscript rests solely with qualified human editors
• AI must never be permitted to independently determine publication outcomes
• Editorial judgment must always be grounded in human expertise and ethical reasoning

Verification and Compliance Checks

Science Insights reserves the right to examine any submission where AI misuse is suspected. As part of such an inquiry, authors may be asked to furnish:

• Raw, unaltered research data
• Records detailing the research process
• A clear account of how and where AI tools were involved
• Any further evidence required to confirm ethical compliance

Should the response prove inadequate or evasive, the journal may proceed with appropriate editorial consequences, including rejection or retraction.

Other Policies and Future Updates

This policy operates alongside, and does not replace, Science Insights' existing standards on research ethics, the peer-review process, plagiarism prevention, and general editorial conduct. Everyone engaged in the publication pipeline is expected to uphold rigorous standards of honesty and professionalism. As AI technology and scholarly norms continue to evolve, Science Insights may amend this policy periodically, and the version displayed on the journal's official website at any point in time represents the governing standard.

For inquiries related to artificial intelligence policy, please contact our editorial office at editorial@sciinsights.org.