Artificial Intelligence and Automated Tools

JGTSS permits responsible use of computational and AI methods when they serve a legitimate research purpose and their operation can be evaluated. A tool cannot take responsibility for a social interpretation, verify the experiences of participants or stand behind a published claim. Human authors remain accountable for the entire manuscript, including material prepared with automated assistance.

Author use and disclosure

Authors disclose generative AI or similar assistance that materially contributed to drafting, translation, coding, interpretation, images or analysis. The statement identifies the tool and version when available, the purpose, the parts of the work affected and the checks performed by the authors. Routine spelling or formatting assistance need not be catalogued unless it substantially changed meaning or the journal requests clarification.

When an AI system is itself part of the method, a brief acknowledgement is insufficient. Authors describe model selection, access date, configuration, prompts or input procedures, preprocessing, validation and the role of human interpretation to the extent necessary to evaluate or reproduce the study. Limitations arising from proprietary or changing systems must be acknowledged. Automated coding of interviews, sentiment analysis or synthetic respondents cannot be presented as equivalent to direct evidence without a defensible methodological explanation.

Accuracy rights and participant protection

AI must not be used to fabricate interviews, survey responses, archival sources, quotations, references, images or research findings. Synthetic demonstration material is clearly labelled and kept distinguishable from observed evidence. Authors verify references against the actual sources and check translations with appropriate language competence. They must not describe an output as an authentic statement by a participant or historical person unless the underlying source supports it.

Authors assess confidentiality, consent, intellectual property and the service’s data handling before entering research material into a tool. Identifiable interview transcripts, sensitive community information or restricted archives must not be uploaded to an unapproved system. Permission to collect data does not necessarily authorize external AI processing. A tool’s output is not itself proof that reuse rights have been cleared.

Editorial use and review

Editors and reviewers provide their own substantive assessment. They must not delegate manuscript evaluation, recommendation or decision to a generative system, submit confidential files to an unapproved service or publish machine-generated reports as their own expert judgment. Authorized routine support may assist language comprehension or administrative checks only when confidentiality is protected and the human user remains responsible.

JGTSS uses the screening services identified in this policy with recorded human oversight. The Research Integrity Officer must check access permissions, confidentiality conditions and the suitability of each report. Questions about automated assistance or an integrity concern may be submitted through OJS or to jgtssintegrity@jandoopress.com. Editors assess the underlying sources and author explanation, then use the appropriate clarification, correction or investigation procedure.

Declared journal screening tools

Turnitin supplies similarity and AI-writing screening for JGTSS’s English manuscripts. Each valid, applicable report is subject to the separate 30 percent maximum and the assessment procedure in Originality Plagiarism and Overlapping Publication. The AI indicator describes eligible prose assessed by the model; it does not establish who wrote a passage or the probability of misconduct. Staff must not record absent or unsuitable output as a passing result.

The Research Integrity Officer limits report access, checks processing settings and retains the necessary assessment record. Authors must disclose substantive generative assistance; reviewers and editors must supply their own scholarly judgments. Confidential interviews, searchable quotations and participant affiliations cannot be sent to an unapproved service. A concern discovered after publication enters the investigation and record-correction process. The refund policy applies when a serious author-attributable violation is substantiated.

Last updated: 16 September 2026