Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

1. Policy Statement

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku (JIP) recognizes that artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative artificial intelligence, is increasingly used in scientific research, academic writing, data analysis, and scholarly publishing.

The journal supports the responsible, ethical, transparent, and accountable use of AI-assisted technologies while maintaining the integrity, originality, reliability, and confidentiality of scholarly publications.

This policy establishes requirements for the use of generative AI by authors, reviewers, editors, and individuals involved in journal publishing operations.

The policy is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) position on Authorship and AI Tools, the American Psychological Association (APA) guidance on generative AI in scholarly publishing, and relevant principles of research integrity and publication ethics.

The use of AI tools does not replace human intellectual contribution, professional judgment, ethical responsibility, or scholarly accountability.

2. Scope and Definition

For the purposes of this policy, generative AI refers to computational systems capable of producing or substantially transforming content, including:

Written text.
Research summaries.
Computer code.
Images and illustrations.
Audio and video.
Synthetic data.
Analytical interpretations.
Other forms of generated scholarly content.

Examples may include large language models, AI writing assistants, generative image systems, and AI-based analytical tools.

The policy applies to AI use during:

Research planning and design.
Literature searching and synthesis.
Data collection and processing.
Data analysis and interpretation.
Manuscript preparation.
Image and figure production.
Manuscript revision.
Peer review.
Editorial decision-making.
Journal production and publication.

Routine software functions that do not generate substantive scholarly content, such as conventional spelling checks and reference management, are distinguished from generative AI use.

3. Fundamental Principles

The use of generative AI in research and scholarly publishing must follow five fundamental principles.

Transparency: Material AI use must be disclosed accurately.

Human accountability: Human authors and editors remain responsible for their scholarly decisions and outputs.

Research integrity: AI must not be used to fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent research.

Confidentiality: Sensitive and unpublished information must be protected.

Intellectual property: AI use must respect copyright, licensing, attribution, and third-party rights.

AI assistance is acceptable only when it is consistent with these principles and the journal's applicable editorial policies.

4. AI Tools Cannot Be Authors

Generative AI tools, chatbots, large language models, and other automated systems cannot be listed as authors or co-authors of manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku.

AI systems cannot fulfill the responsibilities associated with scholarly authorship because they cannot:

Assume accountability for published work.
Approve the final manuscript as a responsible author.
Respond independently to allegations of research misconduct.
Declare competing interests with legal accountability.
Accept responsibility for copyright and licensing agreements.
Ensure compliance with research ethics requirements.

All listed authors must be human individuals who satisfy the journal's authorship criteria.

AI tools must not be included in the author list, corresponding author information, or ORCID records as authors.

5. Human Responsibility and Accountability

Authors remain fully responsible for all content submitted to the journal, including material developed with AI assistance.

Authors must independently verify:

Factual accuracy.
Scientific validity.
Research methodology.
Statistical results.
Interpretation of findings.
References and citations.
Originality.
Ethical compliance.
Copyright and licensing.
Consistency between the manuscript and underlying research evidence.

The use of AI does not reduce the responsibility of any author.

Authors must be able to explain and defend the methods, findings, and conclusions presented in their manuscripts.

6. Permitted Uses of Generative AI by Authors

Generative AI may be used as an assistive tool when its use is lawful, ethical, appropriately disclosed, and subject to meaningful human verification.

Potentially acceptable uses include:

Language editing and readability improvement.
Assistance with manuscript organization.
Development of preliminary outlines.
Support for literature discovery.
Assistance with computer programming.
Support for data cleaning or analysis.
Translation assistance.
Preparation of non-deceptive graphical materials.
Assistance with technical formatting.

Permission to use AI for these purposes does not authorize the delegation of scholarly responsibility to an automated system.

Authors must ensure that AI-assisted outputs are accurate, appropriately attributed, and consistent with the original research.

7. Prohibited Uses of Generative AI by Authors

The following practices are prohibited:

Listing an AI system as an author.
Fabricating research data or findings.
Generating fictional participant responses and presenting them as actual research observations.
Creating nonexistent references or citations.
Presenting AI-generated interpretations as independently verified scientific findings without appropriate validation.
Manipulating images, figures, or datasets in ways that misrepresent research evidence.
Concealing material AI use when disclosure is required.
Submitting AI-generated content that infringes intellectual property rights.
Uploading confidential participant information to unauthorized AI services.
Using AI to fabricate ethics approval or informed consent documentation.
Using AI to impersonate authors, reviewers, or editors.
Using AI to manipulate peer review or editorial decisions.

Violations may result in editorial action under the journal's publication ethics policies.

8. Mandatory Disclosure of AI Use

Authors must disclose the use of generative AI when the technology materially contributes to manuscript preparation, research design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, code generation, images, or other scholarly content.

The disclosure must identify:

The name of the AI tool.
The developer or provider, where relevant.
The version or model, where available and relevant.
The purpose of its use.
The part of the research or manuscript affected.
The nature and extent of human verification.

Disclosure must be sufficiently detailed to allow editors and readers to understand the role of AI in the scholarly work.

Authors should provide this information in a dedicated Generative AI Disclosure Statement and, where AI is part of the research methodology, in the Methods section.

9. AI Use for Language Editing

Authors may use AI-assisted tools to improve grammar, spelling, clarity, readability, or translation.

Such tools must not alter the scientific meaning, findings, or conclusions without the authors' deliberate review and approval.

Routine spelling and grammar corrections that do not generate substantive scholarly content generally do not require formal disclosure under this proposed policy.

However, substantial rewriting, translation, drafting, or content generation using generative AI must be disclosed.

Authors remain responsible for ensuring that language improvements preserve the intended meaning.

10. AI Use in Literature Reviews and References

AI tools may assist authors in identifying potential research topics, search terms, or relevant literature.

However, AI-generated references must not be accepted without verification.

Authors must verify every cited publication against authentic scholarly sources.

Authors must not cite fabricated articles, incorrect DOIs, nonexistent authors, or invented research findings.

AI-generated summaries must be checked against the original publications.

AI systems must not be treated or cited as authoritative scientific sources for factual or theoretical claims.

When the AI system itself is the subject of research, appropriate citation of its documentation or output may be relevant to the research methodology.

11. AI Use in Research Design

Generative AI may assist with preliminary research planning, including developing ideas, organizing methodological alternatives, or supporting technical preparation.

However, research design decisions must be made and justified by qualified human researchers.

Authors remain responsible for:

Research questions and hypotheses.
Study design.
Sampling strategies.
Measurement procedures.
Ethical considerations.
Data analysis plans.
Interpretation of results.

AI-generated suggestions must be evaluated against appropriate methodological standards and relevant scholarly literature.

12. AI Use in Quantitative Research

Authors using AI-assisted tools for quantitative analysis must disclose material AI involvement.

Relevant activities may include:

Data preparation.
Statistical code generation.
Model selection assistance.
Data visualization.
Analytical troubleshooting.
Interpretation support.

Authors must verify that statistical procedures are appropriate and that generated code produces valid results.

AI-generated statistical interpretations must be checked against the actual data and analytical outputs.

Authors must not report AI-generated numerical results as empirical findings unless they have been appropriately obtained and independently validated.

13. AI Use in Qualitative Research

Qualitative research may involve AI-assisted transcription, translation, coding, categorization, or thematic analysis.

Such use requires particular attention to methodological transparency, participant confidentiality, and interpretive validity.

Authors must explain:

Which AI tools were used.
The qualitative tasks performed.
Whether human researchers reviewed the outputs.
How coding or interpretations were validated.
How participant information was protected.
How AI assistance affected the analytical process.

AI-generated themes or interpretations must not be presented as independently established findings without appropriate human evaluation.

The use of AI must not eliminate the researcher's responsibility for reflexivity, contextual understanding, and methodological rigor.

14. AI Use in Psychological Assessment

Psychological research frequently involves assessment instruments, questionnaires, behavioral observations, and psychometric data.

Authors must exercise caution when using AI to:

Develop questionnaire items.
Translate psychological scales.
Adapt assessment instruments.
Score psychological responses.
Interpret test results.
Classify psychological characteristics.
Generate psychological profiles.

AI-generated or AI-modified instruments must not be described as validated without appropriate empirical evidence.

Authors must provide relevant information concerning instrument development, adaptation, reliability, validity, and ethical use.

AI tools must not be used to generate fictional psychometric evidence or fabricate assessment outcomes.

15. Protection of Research Participants

Authors must protect the privacy, dignity, confidentiality, and rights of research participants when using AI.

Researchers must not upload identifiable or sensitive participant information to external AI services without an appropriate legal and ethical basis and any necessary authorization.

Sensitive information may include:

Psychological assessment results.
Clinical or counseling records.
Mental health information.
Interview transcripts.
Audio and video recordings.
Personal identifiers.
Sensitive demographic information.
Confidential institutional records.

Removing names alone may not be sufficient to prevent re-identification.

Authors must evaluate data protection risks, including retention, secondary use, and access by AI service providers.

16. AI-Assisted Transcription and Translation

AI-assisted transcription and translation may be used when consistent with participant consent, confidentiality obligations, and research ethics requirements.

Authors should consider:

Whether the service processes data externally.
Whether recordings or transcripts contain identifiable information.
Whether the data may be retained or reused.
Whether institutional authorization is required.
Whether transcription accuracy has been verified.
Whether contextual and cultural meanings have been preserved.

AI-assisted transcripts and translations must be reviewed by appropriately qualified human researchers.

17. AI-Generated Images, Figures, and Illustrations

The use of AI-generated or AI-modified visual content must be transparent and must not misrepresent research evidence.

Authors must disclose material AI involvement in producing or altering figures, images, or illustrations.

AI must not be used to fabricate or deceptively modify:

Research photographs.
Experimental observations.
Psychological assessment results.
Graphs representing empirical findings.
Participant-related visual evidence.

Illustrative AI-generated material may be considered when it is clearly identified, ethically appropriate, and compliant with copyright and licensing requirements.

The journal may request source materials or further documentation where necessary.

18. AI-Generated Data and Synthetic Data

Synthetic data generated using AI must be clearly identified as synthetic.

Authors must not represent synthetic data as observations obtained from real participants.

Where synthetic data are used for simulation, methodological development, or other legitimate purposes, the manuscript must explain:

Why synthetic data were used.
How the data were generated.
The relevant tools and procedures.
How results were validated.
The limitations of the synthetic data.

Claims about human behavior must not be based on synthetic observations without appropriate methodological justification.

19. Reproducibility and Documentation

Authors must maintain sufficient documentation of material AI-assisted research procedures to support methodological transparency.

Where relevant, documentation may include:

Tool or model identification.
Software version.
Prompts or instructions materially affecting the research.
Relevant model settings.
Analytical scripts.
Human validation procedures.
Limitations and sources of uncertainty.

The journal may request additional documentation during editorial assessment.

Disclosure requirements must be balanced against legitimate privacy, confidentiality, security, and intellectual property restrictions.

20. Bias, Fairness, and Scientific Validity

Generative AI systems may produce biased, inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading outputs.

Authors must critically evaluate potential biases that could affect research design, analysis, interpretation, or reporting.

In psychology and behavioral sciences, particular attention should be given to:

Cultural and linguistic bias.
Gender-related bias.
Population representativeness.
Measurement bias.
Stereotyping.
Inappropriate psychological classification.
Misinterpretation of context-specific behavior.

AI-generated outputs must not be assumed to be objective or scientifically valid merely because they are produced by automated systems.

21. Intellectual Property and Copyright

Authors must ensure that AI-assisted content complies with applicable copyright and intellectual property requirements.

The use of generative AI does not automatically establish that generated material is original, unrestricted, or legally reusable.

Authors must verify the provenance and permitted use of relevant materials.

AI tools must not be used to reproduce copyrighted psychological instruments, proprietary datasets, or other restricted materials without authorization.

The journal's Intellectual Property Policy applies to AI-assisted submissions.

22. Generative AI and Authorship Contributions

The use of AI tools does not replace the requirement to identify the contributions of human authors.

Authors must accurately describe their intellectual and practical contributions.

AI systems must not be assigned authorship roles or listed as contributors equivalent to human researchers.

Where applicable, AI assistance should be documented separately from human authorship contribution statements.

All human authors must approve the final manuscript and accept accountability for its content.

23. Generative AI Use by Peer Reviewers

Peer review is a confidential, independent, and human-led scholarly evaluation process.

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, unpublished figures, supplementary files, research data, or confidential editorial correspondence to external generative AI services.

Reviewers must not use generative AI to:

Evaluate the scientific merit of confidential manuscripts.
Generate substantive reviewer assessments.
Replace independent methodological evaluation.
Summarize confidential manuscripts through unauthorized AI services.
Produce recommendations concerning acceptance or rejection.
Analyze unpublished data without authorization.
Disclose confidential information to external AI providers.

Reviewers must personally examine manuscripts and formulate their own scholarly assessments.

24. AI Assistance in Reviewer Reports

Under this proposed policy, reviewers should not use generative AI to draft, rewrite, translate, summarize, or substantially edit confidential reviewer reports through external AI services.

Such use may disclose confidential manuscript information or editorial judgments.

Routine local spelling or grammar checks that do not transmit confidential content to an external AI service may be used when consistent with institutional security requirements.

Any proposed exception involving an approved secure system must be authorized under a formally adopted journal procedure.

Responsibility for reviewer reports must remain with the human reviewer.

25. Generative AI Use by Editors

Editors must protect the confidentiality, integrity, and independence of editorial processes.

Editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts or confidential editorial records to unauthorized external generative AI services.

Editors must not delegate the following responsibilities to generative AI:

Determining manuscript acceptance or rejection.
Making final scholarly judgments.
Assessing allegations of research misconduct.
Determining the reliability of research findings.
Resolving authorship disputes.
Making correction or retraction decisions.

AI-generated recommendations must not replace independent editorial judgment.

Editors remain accountable for all editorial decisions.

26. Journal Use of Automated and AI Tools

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku recognizes that automated systems may support technical and administrative publishing activities.

Such activities may include:

Similarity screening.
Metadata validation.
Technical formatting.
Accessibility support.
Administrative workflow assistance.
Other authorized operational functions.

The journal should publicly disclose material automated or AI-assisted processes used in its editorial and publishing workflow.

Disclosure should identify the general purpose of the tools, their role in the workflow, and relevant human oversight.

The journal must not imply that a process is entirely human-operated if material AI-assisted evaluation is being performed.

The use of automated tools must comply with confidentiality, privacy, and intellectual property requirements.

27. AI-Generated Content Detection

The journal may use appropriate screening methods to identify potential concerns about AI-assisted content.

However, AI-detection scores must not be treated as conclusive evidence of misconduct.

Automated detection tools may produce false positives and false negatives.

Editorial assessment should consider:

The nature of the concern.
The manuscript content.
Author disclosures.
Available supporting evidence.
Explanations provided by the authors.
The journal's applicable policies.

The journal must not reject or sanction a manuscript solely on the basis of an unverified AI-detection percentage.

28. AI and Research Integrity Violations

Potential violations of this policy include:

Undisclosed material AI use.
Fabricated AI-generated references.
AI-generated fictitious research data.
Misrepresentation of synthetic data.
Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information.
AI-assisted plagiarism.
Fabricated psychological assessment results.
Manipulation of figures or research evidence.
Improper AI-generated reviewer reports.
Unauthorized AI-assisted editorial assessment.

Concerns will be evaluated under the journal's Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

The journal will distinguish between permitted AI assistance, disclosure deficiencies, methodological weaknesses, and serious research misconduct.

29. Handling Suspected AI Misuse

When credible concerns arise, the editorial team may:

Conduct a preliminary assessment.
Request clarification from the authors or reviewers.
Examine relevant disclosure statements.
Request methodological documentation.
Consult appropriate subject experts.
Assess confidentiality or intellectual property risks.
Refer serious research misconduct allegations to relevant institutions where appropriate.
Determine a proportionate editorial response.

The journal should provide an appropriate opportunity for affected parties to respond.

Editorial decisions must be based on relevant evidence rather than unsupported assumptions about AI use.

30. Editorial Actions and Sanctions

Depending on the circumstances, editorial actions may include:

Requesting an AI disclosure statement.
Requiring clarification or correction.
Requesting additional methodological documentation.
Requiring substantive manuscript revision.
Rejecting a submission when serious unresolved problems prevent ethical publication.
Disregarding a compromised reviewer report.
Assigning an independent reviewer.
Issuing a correction to a published article.
Publishing an expression of concern where appropriate.
Retracting an article when established grounds justify retraction.

The journal must apply proportionate procedures consistent with its publication ethics policies and relevant COPE guidance.

31. Post-Publication AI Concerns

Concerns involving AI use may be identified after an article has been published.

The journal will assess whether the concern affects:

Accuracy of the published work.
Reliability of research findings.
Ethical compliance.
Participant confidentiality.
Authorship and attribution.
Intellectual property rights.
Integrity of the peer review process.

Where necessary, the journal will take appropriate corrective action under its Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections Policy.

Not every undisclosed or inappropriate use of AI automatically warrants retraction.

32. Complaints and Appeals

Authors, reviewers, and other affected parties may raise concerns or appeal editorial actions relating to this policy through the journal's official communication channels.

Appeals should identify the relevant decision, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide supporting evidence.

The journal will consider complaints and appeals fairly, confidentially, and consistently with its Complaints and Appeals Policy.

33. Generative AI Disclosure Statement

Authors who have used generative AI materially in research or manuscript preparation must include a disclosure statement.

The statement should identify the tool, its purpose, and the human verification performed.

Example A — AI Used for Language Editing

"During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [AI tool name and version] to assist with language editing and readability improvement. All AI-assisted changes were reviewed and verified by the authors. The authors take full responsibility for the final content of the manuscript."

Example B — AI Used for Data Analysis Assistance

"The authors used [AI tool name and version] to assist with [specific analytical task]. The analytical procedures, generated code, and outputs were independently reviewed and validated by the authors. All research interpretations and conclusions were determined by the authors."

Example C — AI Used for Qualitative Transcription

"The authors used [AI tool name and version] to assist with transcription of research interviews. Transcripts were reviewed against the original recordings by the research team. Data processing was conducted in accordance with applicable participant consent and confidentiality requirements."

Example D — No Generative AI Used

"The authors declare that no generative artificial intelligence tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript or in the generation, analysis, or interpretation of its research content."

Authors must ensure that the statement accurately reflects their actual use of AI.

34. Responsibilities of Authors, Reviewers, and Editors

Authors

Authors must disclose material AI use, verify AI-assisted outputs, protect research data, and accept full accountability for submitted content.

Reviewers

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality, conduct independent scholarly evaluations, and refrain from unauthorized AI-assisted manuscript assessment.

Editors

Editors must protect editorial independence, assess AI-related concerns fairly, and ensure that journal AI practices are consistent with published policies.

Publisher and Journal Management

The publisher and journal management should support appropriate data protection, technical safeguards, policy transparency, and training concerning responsible AI use.

35. Policy Review and Continuous Improvement

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku will periodically review this policy in response to developments in generative AI, scholarly publishing standards, research ethics, and applicable legal requirements.

The journal will seek consistency between this policy and its: