AI Use Policy

 

In response to the rapid development of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs), Edumatika : Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika establishes this policy on the responsible and ethical use of AI tools in manuscript preparation, peer review, and editorial decision-making.

The journal is committed to maintaining transparency, accountability, confidentiality, and integrity throughout the scholarly publication process. This policy follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Role Permitted Not Permitted
Authors Supporting uses such as translation, language editing, outlining, coding help, and justified data analysis, with disclosure Listing AI as an author; fabricating data, results, or references; undisclosed use
Editors Authorized, non-substantive administrative tasks that involve no confidential content Uploading manuscripts to AI; using AI to evaluate manuscripts or make editorial decisions
Peer Reviewers — Any use of GenAI in any part of the review process
 

1. Scope and Definitions

This policy applies to manuscripts, supplementary files, datasets, figures, revision documents, responses to reviewers, editorial correspondence, and peer-review reports submitted to or processed by the journal.

For the purposes of this policy:

  • Generative AI (GenAI) refers to tools that produce new text, images, code, data, or other content in response to prompts, including but not limited to ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, DeepSeek, and other LLM-based chatbots.
  • AI-assisted technologies refers to tools that use AI to translate, paraphrase, rewrite, summarize, analyze, or substantially modify content, including AI features embedded in writing, translation, or analysis software.
  • Basic tools that do not generate or substantially alter content, such as built-in spelling checkers and reference managers, are not considered GenAI under this policy.

2. Use of Generative AI by Authors

2.1 Authorship and Accountability

GenAI tools, LLMs, chatbots, and other AI-assisted technologies cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. Authorship entails legal accountability, intellectual responsibility, the capacity to approve the final version of the manuscript, and full accountability for research integrity. AI systems cannot fulfil these requirements.

Authors remain fully responsible for all content submitted to the journal, including any text, translation, analysis, computer code, table, figure, image, reference, or other material produced or modified with AI assistance. Authors must critically review, edit, and verify all AI-assisted content before submission, in particular:

  • the factual and conceptual accuracy of the content;
  • the accuracy of mathematical notation, formulas, proofs, calculations, and statistical results;
  • the existence, relevance, and accuracy of all citations and references, so that no fictitious references (AI hallucinations) remain;
  • the originality of the manuscript;
  • the validity of interpretations and conclusions; and
  • compliance with research ethics, copyright, privacy, and data-protection requirements.

AI-generated output must not replace the authors' scholarly judgment, mathematical reasoning, critical analysis, or intellectual contribution.

2.2 Permitted Uses

✔ Authors may use GenAI or AI-assisted technologies for:

  • translation;
  • grammar, spelling, and punctuation correction;
  • improving readability, coherence, syntax, and academic language;
  • paraphrasing sentences without changing their scientific substance;
  • preliminary brainstorming, organizing, or outlining the manuscript;
  • coding or programming assistance; and
  • data processing or analysis, when methodologically justified, transparently reported, and independently validated by the authors.

AI use must remain under direct human supervision and must not determine the final scientific interpretation or conclusions of the study. All of the uses above must be disclosed as described in Section 3.

2.3 GenAI as Part of the Research Method or Object of Study

When GenAI is used as part of the research method or is itself the object of research (for example, studies examining ChatGPT-assisted mathematics learning), authors must describe in the Methods section the tool, version, provider, prompts or procedures, date of access, validation process, and limitations in sufficient detail to support transparency and reproducibility.

2.4 Prohibited Uses

✘ Authors must not use GenAI or AI-assisted technologies to:

  • fabricate, falsify, or manipulate research data, participant responses, findings, quotations, references, images, graphs, or other research materials;
  • generate false, unverifiable, irrelevant, or misleading citations;
  • produce fictitious mathematical solutions, statistical results, or empirical evidence;
  • generate scientific conclusions not grounded in the authors' own experimental or field analysis;
  • conceal plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, or other academic misconduct;
  • present AI-generated content as entirely human-generated scholarly work;
  • replace essential human judgment in research design, data interpretation, ethical assessment, or scientific decision-making; or
  • infringe copyright, intellectual-property rights, privacy rights, or applicable research-ethics requirements.

2.5 Research Data, Participant Privacy, and Images

Authors must not upload confidential or identifiable research materials to publicly accessible AI platforms without appropriate consent, ethical authorization, and adequate data-protection safeguards. This includes student identities, student work, questionnaire responses, interview transcripts, classroom recordings, and unpublished institutional data.

AI-generated or AI-modified images must not be presented as authentic empirical evidence. Their use is permitted only when image generation or modification is part of the research method or the object of study, and is clearly identified and methodologically explained.

3. Mandatory Disclosure by Authors

Authors must disclose any use of GenAI or AI-assisted technologies that generated, translated, analyzed, substantially revised, or materially influenced the manuscript. The disclosure must state:

  • the name and version of the AI tool, when available;
  • the developer or provider of the tool;
  • the specific purpose for which the tool was used;
  • the parts of the manuscript or research process affected;
  • the extent of the AI contribution; and
  • the procedures used to review, verify, and validate the AI-assisted output.

3.1 Where to Place the Disclosure

Type of AI use Location of disclosure
Translation, proofreading, or general language improvement Acknowledgements section
Coding, data processing, data analysis, classification, image generation, or another methodological procedure Methods section
Generating or substantially modifying a figure, image, illustration, or table Caption of the relevant figure or table
All cases (summary of every AI use) A separate Declaration of Generative AI Use placed before the References section

Disclosure of AI use does not transfer responsibility from the authors to the AI tool, its developer, or the journal.

3.2 Disclosure Statement Template

Template

Declaration of Generative AI Use: During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [tool name and version, e.g., ChatGPT (GPT-4o), OpenAI] for the purpose of [specific purpose, e.g., translation and refinement of English grammar and readability] in [affected parts, e.g., the Introduction and Discussion sections]. After using this tool, the author(s) thoroughly reviewed, edited, and verified the content and take full responsibility for the integrity, accuracy, and originality of this publication.

Example

Declaration of Generative AI Use: During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT for translation, language refinement, and coherence enhancement, and Grammarly for proofreading. The authors subsequently reviewed and verified all AI-assisted content for accuracy, originality, and compliance with academic and ethical standards. The authors take full responsibility for the content and interpretations presented in this manuscript.

If no AI was used (optional)

Declaration of Generative AI Use: The authors declare that no Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were used in the preparation of this manuscript.

4. Use of Generative AI by the Editorial Team

The Editorial Team must protect the confidentiality, intellectual property, and personal information contained in all submitted manuscripts and related documents. Editors and editorial staff must not upload, copy, transmit, or provide any part of an unpublished manuscript, supplementary file, author response, reviewer report, or editorial correspondence to a publicly accessible or unauthorized AI system.

The Editorial Team may use AI-assisted technologies only for limited, non-substantive administrative purposes, such as workflow organization, scheduling, technical formatting assistance, or general correspondence, and only when:

  • the technology has been officially authorized by the journal or publisher;
  • appropriate confidentiality, privacy, and data-security safeguards are in place;
  • no confidential manuscript content or personal information is disclosed;
  • the use does not involve scientific evaluation or publication decisions; and
  • all AI-assisted outputs are reviewed and verified by a responsible human editor.

✘ Editors and editorial staff must not use GenAI to:

  • assess the scientific quality, originality, novelty, significance, or methodological validity of a manuscript;
  • evaluate mathematical arguments, learning designs, instruments, statistical analyses, or research findings;
  • generate substantive editorial evaluations or decision letters;
  • decide whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, rejected, or sent for peer review;
  • replace human judgment in selecting reviewers or resolving conflicting review reports; or
  • determine plagiarism, research misconduct, or undisclosed AI use solely on the basis of an automated AI-detection tool.

All editorial decisions are made by qualified human editors. The journal does not use automated AI systems for acceptance or rejection decisions. The Editor-in-Chief and the assigned editor remain fully responsible for the fairness, accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of the editorial process.

5. Prohibition of Generative AI Use by Peer Reviewers

Submitted manuscripts are strictly confidential and contain privileged intellectual property. Peer reviewers are therefore prohibited from using GenAI or AI-assisted technologies in any part of the review process. Uploading a manuscript to a third-party AI platform violates reviewer confidentiality, the authors' proprietary rights, and the privacy of unpublished research data.

Reviewers must not upload, copy, submit, or disclose a manuscript, abstract, supplementary file, figure, table, dataset, author response, or other confidential material to an AI system.

✘ Reviewers must not use GenAI to:

  • read, translate, summarize, interpret, or evaluate a submitted manuscript;
  • assess its novelty, theoretical contribution, methodology, validity, findings, or implications;
  • evaluate mathematical content, instruments, statistical analyses, or educational interventions;
  • generate, revise, translate, or paraphrase reviewer comments;
  • formulate criticisms, questions, recommendations, or publication decisions; or
  • detect plagiarism, data manipulation, fabricated references, or AI-generated content outside procedures authorized by the journal.

Peer-review reports must represent the reviewer's own expertise, critical evaluation, and scholarly judgment. Reviewers remain personally accountable for the accuracy, fairness, originality, confidentiality, and professional quality of their reports.

A reviewer who cannot complete the evaluation without using GenAI should decline the review invitation. A reviewer who has inadvertently submitted confidential material to an AI system must immediately notify the assigned editor and discontinue the review.

6. AI-Detection Tools and Suspected Undisclosed Use

AI-detection results are not treated as conclusive evidence of misconduct. Any concern regarding undisclosed or inappropriate AI use, such as fictitious references, inconsistent data, or unverifiable claims, is examined through an appropriate editorial inquiry supported by verifiable evidence. Authors are given the opportunity to clarify and, where needed, to provide supporting materials such as raw data, drafts, or analysis files.

7. Non-Compliance and Editorial Action

Failure to comply with this policy may be considered a breach of publication ethics. Depending on the nature and severity of the violation, the journal may:

  • request clarification or a formal declaration of AI use;
  • require correction, revision, or removal of AI-generated material;
  • reject or withdraw a submitted manuscript;
  • disregard or invalidate a peer-review report;
  • remove an editor or reviewer from the relevant editorial process;
  • publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction; or
  • refer suspected serious misconduct to the relevant institution.

All cases are handled fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with the journal's publication-ethics procedures and COPE guidance.

8. Author Checklist Before Submission

  • ☐  No AI tool is listed as an author or co-author.
  • ☐  All data, results, calculations, and figures come from the authors' own research and have been checked.
  • ☐  Every reference has been verified against its original source (title, authors, year, DOI).
  • ☐  No confidential or identifiable participant data was uploaded to a public AI platform.
  • ☐  Any AI-generated or AI-modified figure is clearly labeled in its caption.
  • ☐  A Declaration of Generative AI Use is placed before the References section.

9. Policy Updates, References, and Contact

Because GenAI technologies and related ethical standards continue to develop, the journal may review and update this policy periodically. Authors, editors, editorial staff, and peer reviewers are responsible for consulting the most recent version of this policy before participating in the publication process.

This policy is informed by: