AI Policy

Indonesian Journal of Da'wah Management Scholars (INDO-JDMS) recognizes that artificial intelligence (AI) and automated tools may support academic work, including language editing, grammar correction, formatting assistance, data processing, reference checking, and technical preparation of manuscripts. However, the use of AI and automated tools must be transparent, responsible, ethical, and supervised by humans.

This policy applies to authors, editors, reviewers, and journal staff involved in manuscript preparation, submission, peer review, editorial decision-making, publication, and post-publication processes.

For the purpose of this policy, AI and automated tools include generative artificial intelligence, large language models, chatbots, automated writing tools, translation tools, grammar checkers, similarity detection tools, image manipulation detection tools, citation checking tools, and other software that can generate, revise, analyze, detect, or recommend scholarly content.

1. General Principles

The use of AI and automated tools in this journal must follow the principles of transparency, accountability, confidentiality, academic integrity, human oversight, and ethical responsibility.

AI tools may assist human work, but they must not replace human judgment, scholarly responsibility, editorial independence, peer review expertise, or author accountability. All final decisions, interpretations, arguments, analyses, and publication responsibilities remain with humans.

The journal does not allow AI tools to be used in ways that create false information, fabricated data, fake references, plagiarism, misleading authorship, biased evaluation, confidentiality breaches, or manipulation of the publication process.

2. Policy for Authors

Authors may use AI and automated tools to support manuscript preparation, but such use must be ethical, transparent, and limited to appropriate purposes.

Authors may use AI tools for:

  1. Grammar correction.
  2. Language polishing.
  3. Formatting assistance.
  4. Translation support.
  5. Reference organization.
  6. Technical editing.
  7. Data processing assistance, when appropriate and verified.
  8. Idea organization, provided that the final scholarly argument is developed and verified by the author.

Authors must disclose the use of generative AI or automated tools when these tools are used beyond simple grammar correction, spelling correction, formatting, or basic language editing.

Authors must disclose AI use when AI tools are used to:

  1. Generate parts of the manuscript text.
  2. Rewrite substantial sections of the manuscript.
  3. Produce summaries, arguments, explanations, or conceptual frameworks.
  4. Assist with data analysis, coding, classification, or interpretation.
  5. Generate tables, figures, images, diagrams, or visual materials.
  6. Translate substantial parts of the manuscript.
  7. Suggest references, citations, or literature review content.
  8. Create research instruments, interview questions, questionnaires, or learning media content.

3. AI Disclosure Statement for Authors

When AI or automated tools are used, authors must include an AI Disclosure Statement in the manuscript, preferably before the references section or in the acknowledgment section.

The disclosure statement should include:

  1. Name of the AI or automated tool used.
  2. Version of the tool, if available.
  3. Purpose of use.
  4. Parts of the manuscript or research process supported by the tool.
  5. Confirmation that the author has reviewed, verified, and taken full responsibility for the final content.

Example statement:

AI Disclosure Statement
The author(s) used [name of AI tool] to assist with language editing and manuscript clarity. The author(s) reviewed, verified, and revised all AI-assisted output and take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and validity of the final manuscript.

Example for more substantial use:

AI Disclosure Statement
The author(s) used [name of AI tool] to assist with summarizing interview transcripts and organizing preliminary themes. All outputs were checked, interpreted, and validated by the author(s). The author(s) take full responsibility for the data analysis, findings, interpretation, and conclusions of this article.

If no AI tool was used, authors may include the following statement:

AI Disclosure Statement
The author(s) declare that no generative AI or automated tools were used in the preparation, analysis, writing, or revision of this manuscript, except for basic spelling, grammar, or formatting assistance.

4. Author Responsibility

Authors are fully responsible for all content submitted to the journal, including any content prepared with the assistance of AI or automated tools.

Authors must verify:

  1. Accuracy of AI-generated text.
  2. Validity of AI-assisted analysis.
  3. Correctness of references and citations.
  4. Originality of the manuscript.
  5. Absence of plagiarism.
  6. Accuracy of data, tables, figures, and interpretation.
  7. Compliance with research ethics and publication ethics.
  8. Absence of fabricated, false, biased, or misleading information.

Authors must not submit AI-generated content without careful human review. Authors must not rely on AI tools as the sole basis for research analysis, interpretation, academic argument, or conclusion.

If AI tools produce inaccurate information, fake citations, fabricated sources, biased statements, or misleading claims, the responsibility remains with the author(s).

5. AI Cannot Be Listed as an Author

AI tools, chatbots, large language models, automated writing systems, or other non-human tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors in manuscripts submitted to INDO-JDMS.

Authorship requires human responsibility, intellectual contribution, accountability, ethical judgment, approval of the final manuscript, and the ability to respond to questions about the accuracy and integrity of the work. AI tools cannot meet these requirements.

AI tools also cannot be listed in the author byline, corresponding author field, affiliation section, or author contribution statement. If AI tools are used, they must be disclosed in the AI Disclosure Statement, not credited as authors.

6. AI Cannot Be Cited as a Scholarly Source

Generative AI tools must not be cited as authoritative scholarly sources. AI-generated responses are not considered reliable academic references because they may produce inaccurate, unverifiable, incomplete, biased, or fabricated information.

Authors must cite original, verifiable, and credible sources such as journal articles, books, proceedings, official reports, datasets, standards, or other scholarly materials. If AI tools help identify possible references, authors must independently verify the existence, accuracy, relevance, and content of those references before citing them.

Fake references, fabricated DOIs, inaccurate quotations, or unverifiable sources generated by AI are considered serious academic and publication ethics violations.

7. Policy for Reviewers

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality, independence, and integrity in the peer review process. Manuscripts under review are confidential documents and must not be uploaded, copied, or shared with external AI tools, chatbots, or automated platforms that are not approved by the journal.

Reviewers must not use generative AI tools to create peer review reports, evaluate manuscript quality, generate reviewer recommendations, or make scientific judgments about manuscripts.

This restriction is intended to prevent:

  1. Breaches of manuscript confidentiality.
  2. Disclosure of unpublished data or ideas.
  3. Violation of authors’ intellectual property rights.
  4. Superficial, generic, or non-specific review comments.
  5. Biased or inaccurate assessments.
  6. False claims, fake references, or misleading feedback.
  7. Loss of reviewer accountability.

Reviewers may use basic tools for spelling, grammar, or readability improvement of their own review comments, provided that no confidential manuscript content is uploaded to external systems and the reviewer remains fully responsible for the review.

If reviewers use any automated tool in preparing review comments, they must disclose this use to the editor.

8. Policy for Editors

Editors are responsible for ensuring that all editorial decisions are made by qualified human editors based on academic merit, journal scope, reviewer comments, ethical standards, and editorial judgment.

Editors must not use generative AI tools to make editorial decisions, replace peer review, generate final decisions, or evaluate manuscripts in ways that compromise confidentiality, fairness, or accountability.

Editors must not upload submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, author responses, unpublished data, or confidential editorial correspondence to external AI tools unless the journal has formally approved the tool, ensured data protection, and disclosed its use.

Editors may use automated tools to support editorial administration, such as:

  1. Similarity checking.
  2. Reference checking.
  3. Metadata checking.
  4. Grammar or formatting checks.
  5. Detection of possible image manipulation.
  6. Detection of possible research integrity issues.
  7. Screening for incomplete submission files.

However, automated tool outputs must always be reviewed and verified by human editors. Automated detection results must not be treated as final evidence of misconduct without human assessment.

9. Journal Use of Automated Tools

The journal may use automated tools to support editorial quality control and publication integrity. These tools may include similarity detection software, plagiarism checking tools, metadata validation tools, reference checking tools, image integrity tools, or other editorial support systems.

The use of automated tools by the journal is intended to assist, not replace, editorial judgment. Any finding generated by automated tools must be evaluated by editors or journal staff before any editorial action is taken.

For example:

  1. A similarity report must be interpreted by the editor before deciding whether plagiarism has occurred.
  2. A suspected AI-generated text report must be reviewed carefully before contacting the author.
  3. A possible image manipulation alert must be checked manually before making an ethics decision.
  4. Automated reviewer suggestions must be verified by editors before reviewers are invited.

The journal ensures that human oversight is applied to all automated processes.

10. Human Oversight

All use of AI and automated tools in INDO-JDMS must be supervised by humans. This principle is known as human oversight or human in the loop.

Human oversight means that authors, editors, reviewers, and journal staff remain responsible for checking, verifying, interpreting, and deciding on any output produced by AI or automated systems.

The journal does not permit automated tools to make final decisions regarding:

  1. Manuscript acceptance.
  2. Manuscript rejection.
  3. Peer review recommendations.
  4. Ethical violation findings.
  5. Plagiarism determinations.
  6. Authorship decisions.
  7. Retraction, correction, or withdrawal decisions.

All final decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief, assigned editor, or authorized editorial team.

11. Prohibited Uses of AI

The journal prohibits the use of AI or automated tools for the following purposes:

  1. Creating fabricated research data.
  2. Generating false findings or manipulated results.
  3. Producing fake references, fake DOIs, or false citations.
  4. Writing manuscripts without substantial human intellectual contribution.
  5. Concealing plagiarism or duplicate publication.
  6. Manipulating images, tables, figures, or datasets in a misleading way.
  7. Creating fake reviewer identities or peer review reports.
  8. Submitting AI-generated manuscripts without disclosure.
  9. Uploading confidential manuscripts or peer review materials to unauthorized AI tools.
  10. Using AI to impersonate authors, reviewers, editors, or journal staff.

Such practices may be treated as publication ethics violations.

12. Editorial Action for Misuse of AI

If the journal suspects misuse of AI or automated tools, the editorial team may take appropriate action depending on the seriousness of the case.

Possible actions include:

  1. Requesting clarification from the author, reviewer, or editor.
  2. Requesting an AI disclosure statement.
  3. Requesting revision of manuscript sections affected by AI use.
  4. Requesting raw data, research instruments, or supporting documents.
  5. Returning the manuscript to the author before review.
  6. Rejecting the manuscript.
  7. Replacing a reviewer or disregarding a review report.
  8. Issuing a correction or clarification after publication.
  9. Issuing an expression of concern.
  10. Retracting the article in serious cases.
  11. Informing the author’s institution or relevant authority when necessary.

Undisclosed or unethical use of AI may be considered a violation of publication ethics, especially if it involves fabricated content, fake references, plagiarism, data manipulation, authorship misconduct, or confidentiality breaches.

INDO-JDMS supports responsible innovation in scholarly publishing. AI and automated tools may be used to assist academic work, but they must be used transparently, ethically, and under human supervision.

Authors, reviewers, editors, and journal staff are expected to use AI tools responsibly and to ensure that academic integrity, confidentiality, originality, accountability, and human judgment remain central to the publication process.