Artificial Intelligence (AI) Usage Policy

The International Journal of Didactical Studies (IJODS) recognizes the growing role of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in academic research and writing.

The journal supports the responsible and transparent use of AI technologies while maintaining academic integrity, authorship accountability, confidentiality, and human oversight. This policy has been developed with reference to relevant guidance from organizations including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM).

IJODS maintains a dedicated AI policy to ensure that the use of AI tools does not compromise the integrity, originality, or reliability of scholarly work.

1. Use of AI by Authors

Authors may use AI-assisted tools (e.g., for language editing, grammar checking, or improving readability) provided that such use does not replace the authors’ own intellectual contribution.

AI tools must not be used to:

  • Generate original research ideas, hypotheses, or interpretations

  • Produce substantial portions of the manuscript content

  • Fabricate or manipulate data, results, references, or citations

  • Replace critical analysis, methodological decisions, or scholarly judgment

AI tools cannot be listed as authors, as authorship implies responsibility and accountability that can only be assumed by humans.

Generative AI tools must not be cited or listed as scholarly sources or references. Authors remain fully responsible for verifying the accuracy, validity, originality, and appropriateness of any output produced by AI or other automated tools used in the research or preparation of the manuscript.

2. Disclosure of AI Use

Authors must clearly disclose the use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies where such tools have contributed substantively to the preparation, analysis, interpretation, or presentation of the manuscript.

Routine use of automated tools solely for spelling, grammar correction, formatting, or basic language editing does not normally require disclosure, provided that such use does not generate or substantially alter the scholarly content of the manuscript.

Where disclosure is required, authors should identify the tool used and briefly explain how it was used. The disclosure should be included in an appropriate statement in the manuscript or on the title page, in accordance with the journal’s submission requirements.

The use of AI tools does not reduce or transfer authors’ responsibility for the accuracy, originality, validity, integrity, and appropriate attribution of the submitted work.

Failure to disclose AI use where disclosure is required may be considered an ethical concern and will be assessed in accordance with the journal’s Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

3. Responsibility and Accountability

The use of AI-assisted or automated technologies does not alter the ethical and scholarly responsibilities of authors. Human authors remain fully responsible and accountable for all content submitted to IJODS, including the accuracy of statements, validity of analyses, originality of the work, reliability of references and citations, and compliance with research and publication ethics.

Authors must critically review and verify any content, information, analysis, references, or other output produced with the assistance of AI or automated tools before including it in a manuscript.

AI tools cannot qualify for authorship because they cannot assume responsibility for the work, approve the final version, disclose conflicts of interest, or be held accountable for the integrity of the published record.

Generative AI tools must not be cited or listed as scholarly sources or references. Authors should cite the original scholarly or primary sources supporting statements made in the manuscript.

Concerns relating to inappropriate, unethical, or undisclosed AI use are assessed on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the journal’s Ethics and Malpractice Statement. The identification of AI use does not automatically constitute misconduct or automatically result in rejection or retraction.

4. Use of AI by Reviewers

Reviewers must treat manuscripts, supplementary materials, unpublished data, and all information obtained through the peer-review process as confidential.

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, manuscript excerpts, figures, tables, supplementary files, unpublished data, or other confidential review materials to publicly accessible generative AI systems or other external tools where confidentiality, data protection, or intellectual property cannot be assured.

Generative AI must not be used to generate substantive peer-review reports, recommendations, or assessments. Peer review must reflect the reviewer’s own scholarly expertise, critical evaluation, and independent judgment.

Limited use of automated or AI-assisted tools for routine language editing of a review may be permissible only where confidentiality is fully protected and the reviewer remains entirely responsible for the accuracy, substance, tone, and integrity of the final report.

Reviewers are not expected to determine conclusively whether a manuscript contains AI-generated content. If a reviewer has a reasonable concern regarding inappropriate, misleading, or undisclosed AI use, the concern should be reported confidentially to the editor without making an unsupported allegation of misconduct.

AI-detection tools or similar automated systems should not be treated by reviewers as definitive evidence of inappropriate AI use or publication misconduct.

5. Use of AI and Automated Tools by Editors

Editors must not use generative AI to generate substantive editorial assessments or editorial decisions and must not upload manuscripts, peer-review reports, unpublished data, or other confidential materials to AI systems where confidentiality, data protection, or intellectual property cannot be assured.

IJODS may use appropriately evaluated automated tools for routine editorial and integrity-related purposes, such as similarity screening, administrative checks, detection of potential integrity concerns, or support for reviewer identification. Such tools are used only to assist the editorial process and do not independently determine editorial action.

The outputs of automated tools must remain subject to human review and verification. An editor or appropriately qualified member of the editorial team is responsible for assessing automated findings in context before any editorial action is taken.

All decisions regarding manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection are made by human editors exercising independent scholarly judgment.

6. Ethical Concerns and Misuse

Suspected inappropriate, unethical, or undisclosed use of AI or automated tools will be assessed in accordance with the journal’s Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

The output of an AI-detection tool, similarity-detection system, or other automated integrity-screening tool does not, by itself, establish misconduct or inappropriate AI use. Automated findings are treated as preliminary indicators and must be evaluated by human editors in the context of the manuscript and other available evidence.

Where a reasonable concern exists, authors may be asked to provide clarification, relevant information, or supporting documentation and will normally be given an opportunity to respond before a final editorial action is taken.

Cases are assessed individually and any action taken will be evidence-based and proportionate to the nature, seriousness, and effect of the concern. Depending on the circumstances, appropriate actions may include clarification, revision, rejection, correction, an Expression of Concern, retraction, or other measures necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

The identification of AI use does not automatically constitute misconduct and does not, by itself, justify rejection or retraction. Editorial action depends on whether the use of AI violates journal policy or materially affects the originality, reliability, transparency, or integrity of the work.

7. Alignment with International Guidance

This policy is informed by internationally recognized guidance and recommendations concerning the responsible use of artificial intelligence in scholarly publishing. IJODS periodically reviews these resources and updates its policy where appropriate.

Relevant guidance includes:

These external resources inform the journal’s policy but do not replace IJODS’s own editorial judgment, ethical procedures, or responsibility for maintaining the integrity of its publication process.

IJODS recognizes that artificial intelligence technologies and related publishing standards continue to evolve and will periodically review this policy in light of relevant developments in scholarly publishing.

e-ISSN: 2718-0409 | Publisher: Mustafa Güler