Generative AI Policy

Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy

Advance Sustainable Science, Engineering and Technology (ASSET) — Universitas PGRI Semarang
Last updated: 16 October 2026

This is the full ASSET policy on generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and AI-assisted technologies. Role-specific summaries are available for Authors, Editors, and Reviewers. Those pages are derived from this policy; in case of any difference, this policy prevails.

1. Purpose and Scope

GenAI and AI-assisted technologies can support research and scholarly communication, for example in language improvement, translation, literature exploration, coding, and data analysis. Their use also raises concerns about accuracy, authorship, confidentiality, intellectual property, privacy, bias, and accountability.

ASSET recognises these potential benefits while holding that human authorship, scholarly judgment, transparency, and accountability remain fundamental to publication. This policy applies to authors, editors, reviewers, and anyone else taking part in the editorial and peer-review processes of ASSET.

2. Definitions

2.1 Generative AI (GenAI) — AI systems that generate or substantially transform content (text, images, audio, video, code, data, or other material) in response to prompts, e.g. large language models, AI chatbots, image generators, and AI coding assistants.

2.2 AI-assisted technologies — software that uses AI to assist with tasks such as language editing, translation, summarisation, information retrieval, coding, data analysis, or image processing.

2.3 AI used in research — use of AI as a research instrument, analytical method, computational tool, experimental system, or object of study. This is distinct from using AI to generate manuscript content.

3. General Principles

  1. Human responsibility. Using AI does not transfer responsibility from an author, reviewer, or editor to an AI system.
  2. Transparency. Use of GenAI and AI-assisted technologies must be declared as set out in this policy.
  3. Verification. All AI output must be critically evaluated and independently verified. AI can produce inaccurate, biased, or fabricated information, including nonexistent references.
  4. Research integrity. AI must not be used to fabricate or falsify data, results, references, or sources, or to facilitate plagiarism or other misconduct.
  5. Confidentiality and privacy. Confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, peer-review materials, and personal data must not be disclosed to external AI systems in a way that compromises confidentiality, privacy, or intellectual property.
  6. Human judgment. AI may support scholarly, editorial, and administrative work but must not replace human judgment.
  7. AI is not an author. GenAI systems and AI-assisted tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors.

4. Authors

4.1 Acceptable use. Authors may use GenAI or AI-assisted tools responsibly, for example for:

  • improving grammar, spelling, language, clarity, and readability;
  • translation;
  • organising or structuring content and brainstorming ideas;
  • summarising literature or other materials;
  • coding assistance and assisting with data analysis.

AI tools must not replace the authors' own intellectual contribution, critical thinking, analysis, interpretation, or scholarly judgment. Authors remain fully responsible for reviewing, verifying, and correcting any AI-assisted output.

4.2 Mandatory GenAI Declaration. Every manuscript submitted to ASSET must contain a Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies, placed immediately before the References, whether or not AI was used. Authors must also complete this declaration in the submission system. The declaration covers both manuscript preparation and, where applicable, the research process.

If no AI was used:

The authors declare that no Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were used in the preparation of this manuscript or in the research process reported in this article.

If AI was used:

During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [name of tool/service] for [describe the purpose and nature of use]. The authors reviewed and verified the AI-assisted output, made the necessary revisions, and take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and final content of the manuscript.

4.3 Scope of disclosure. Naming the specific tool and describing its use is particularly required when AI was used to:

  • generate or substantially rewrite text;
  • generate or modify figures, tables, or images;
  • translate substantial portions of the manuscript;
  • generate analytical or interpretive content;
  • generate, select, or modify references;
  • generate code incorporated into the research or manuscript.

Routine spelling and grammar correction does not need to be described, but the declaration itself remains mandatory.

4.4 AI in the research process. Using AI as a research instrument, analytical tool, experimental system, or object of study is not prohibited. Where AI forms part of the methodology, authors must describe it in the Methods section, including the tool or model name, version or date of access, provider, and how it was used.

4.5 Images, figures, and other content. AI-generated or AI-modified content must not misrepresent research evidence, fabricate results, create misleading research images, conceal data manipulation, infringe intellectual-property rights, or mislead readers about its origin. AI-generated illustrations must be declared, and AI-assisted image processing that affects findings must be described in the manuscript.

4.6 References and citations. Authors are responsible for the existence and accuracy of every reference. Any reference suggested or modified by AI must be verified against the original source. Fabricated publications, nonexistent authors or DOIs, incorrect bibliographic data, or fabricated quotations must never be included. AI output is never evidence that a source exists or supports a claim.

5. AI and Authorship

GenAI systems and AI-assisted tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. Authorship requires a human who can take responsibility for the content, approve the final version, agree to submission, and respond to questions about the work. AI tools are also non-legal entities and cannot declare conflicts of interest or manage copyright and licence agreements. AI tools may be acknowledged, but acknowledgement is not authorship.

6. Reviewers

6.1 Confidentiality. Peer review is a confidential scholarly activity. Reviewers must not upload, paste, submit, or otherwise transfer any of the following to an external GenAI system:

  • the manuscript or substantial portions of it;
  • unpublished data, figures, tables, or supplementary materials;
  • reviewer or editorial correspondence;
  • any other confidential information obtained through peer review.

This applies even if an AI service is described as "free", "private", or "secure". Reviewers should use only AI tools explicitly authorised by ASSET for the relevant purpose.

6.2 Substantive evaluation. Reviewers must personally evaluate the manuscript and must not delegate substantive assessment to GenAI. AI must not determine whether the manuscript should be accepted or rejected; its novelty, methodological appropriateness, or validity; its overall scholarly quality; or the substantive recommendations made to the editor.

6.3 Limited use for review reports. Reviewers may use AI-assisted tools for limited language or structural improvement of their own review reports, provided that:

  • no confidential manuscript material is entered into the AI system;
  • the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment remains the basis of the review;
  • the reviewer verifies and edits the output;
  • the use is disclosed to the handling editor in the confidential comments.

6.4 Reviewer responsibility. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content and judgment of their review reports, including any AI-assisted wording.

6.5 Raising concerns. A reviewer who suspects undisclosed or inappropriate AI use (e.g., fabricated references or data, misleading images, or a missing or inaccurate GenAI declaration) should inform the handling editor in the confidential comments and explain the basis for the concern.

7. Editors

7.1 Confidentiality. Editors must keep submitted manuscripts and all editorial materials confidential. They must not upload or transfer a manuscript, or confidential parts of it, to an external GenAI system unless that system has been specifically authorised by ASSET under appropriate confidentiality, privacy, security, and data-governance arrangements.

7.2 Editorial assessment and decisions. AI must not independently determine or replace human judgment on acceptance, rejection, or revision; research-integrity concerns or suspected misconduct; or other consequential editorial decisions. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of a qualified human editor.

7.3 Editorial communication. Editors remain responsible for the accuracy, appropriateness, confidentiality, and tone of all editorial correspondence, including correspondence prepared with AI assistance.

8. AI-Assisted Editorial Screening

ASSET may use AI-assisted tools to support similarity screening, language screening, reference and metadata checking, image screening, reviewer identification, and technical compliance checks. AI-generated scores, flags, or recommendations never automatically constitute an editorial decision; any potential problem must be assessed by a qualified human editor before consequential action is taken.

9. AI Detection

AI-detection tools may be used as one source of information when concerns arise. An AI-detection score alone is not conclusive evidence of AI generation or misconduct. Editors consider the totality of evidence and may request clarification from the authors.

10. Declaration Workflow

Stage Who Requirement
Submission Authors Complete the GenAI declaration in the submission system and include it in the manuscript, immediately before the References.
Editorial processing Editors Review the declaration where necessary.
Before acceptance Editors Ensure the declaration is present and properly completed (either the "No AI use" or "AI use" statement).
Publication Editors Ensure the declaration appears in the article before the References, and that AI used in the research methodology is described in the Methods section.

11. Misconduct and Handling of Concerns

The following may be treated as research or publication misconduct:

  • failure to make the required declaration, or making a false declaration;
  • fabrication or falsification of data, results, references, or sources;
  • plagiarism or misleading presentation of AI-generated content;
  • inappropriate manipulation of research images using AI;
  • misuse of confidential manuscript or peer-review materials;
  • impersonation of authors, reviewers, or editors using AI;
  • delegation of substantive scholarly responsibility to an AI system.

Concerns are handled in accordance with the ASSET Publication Ethics, Research Misconduct, and Correction and Retraction policies, following COPE guidance.

12. Policy Review

GenAI technologies and related publishing standards are changing rapidly. ASSET will review this policy periodically and update it to reflect developments in AI technologies, research-integrity standards, publishing practice, applicable law, and international guidance. The version published on the ASSET website is the applicable policy.

13. Sources and Related Standards

This policy is based on the following guidance and standards:

  1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Authorship and AI tools — COPE position statement (13 February 2023). AI tools cannot be authors; authors must disclose AI use and remain fully responsible. publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools — supports sections 3, 4, 5
  2. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Artificial intelligence (AI) in decision making — discussion document. publicationethics.org/guidance/discussion-document/artificial-intelligence-ai-decision-making — supports sections 7, 8, 9
  3. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Artificial intelligence — COPE Focus collection (including AI and peer review). publicationethics.org/cope-focus/artificial-intelligence — supports sections 6, 9, 11
  4. World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Chatbots, Generative AI, and Scholarly Manuscripts: WAME Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Scholarly Publications (revised 31 May 2023). wame.org/page3.php?id=106 — supports sections 4, 5, 6, 7
  5. COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, version 4 (September 2022). Available from DOAJ: doaj.org/apply/transparency and OASPA: oaspa.org/resources/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing — supports transparency of journal policies, authorship, peer review, and handling of misconduct (sections 1, 10, 11, 12)
  6. STM (International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers). Recommendations for a Classification of AI Use in Academic Manuscript Preparation (September 2025). STM report (PDF) — supports sections 4.2–4.3
  7. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (sections on AI-assisted technology). icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf — supports sections 4, 5, 6

See also: Generative AI for Author | Generative AI for Editor | Generative AI for Reviewer