Generative AI Policy

Indonesian Journal of Socio-Cultural Learning (IJSL) recognizes the increasing use of generative artificial intelligence (Generative AI), large language models (LLMs), AI-assisted writing systems, image-generation tools, automated coding assistants, and related technologies in research and scholarly communication.

IJSL permits the responsible use of Generative AI when such use is transparent, verifiable, ethically appropriate, and subject to meaningful human oversight. Generative AI may support scholarly work, but it must not replace human intellectual responsibility, critical judgment, methodological accountability, or authorship.

This policy applies to authors, reviewers, editors, and Editorial Board members involved in the submission, evaluation, and publication of manuscripts in IJSL.

1. Human Responsibility

Human accountability is the central principle governing the use of Generative AI in IJSL.

Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, validity, interpretation, references, ethical compliance, and integrity of their manuscripts, regardless of whether AI-assisted technologies were used during research or manuscript preparation.

Reviewers remain responsible for the intellectual substance and fairness of their assessments, while editors remain responsible for editorial judgment and publication decisions.

Responsibility for scholarly content or editorial decisions cannot be transferred to an AI system.

2. Generative AI and Authorship

Generative AI systems, including large language models and conversational AI tools, cannot be listed as authors or co-authors of manuscripts submitted to IJSL.

Authorship requires the capacity to:

  • make identifiable intellectual contributions;

  • approve the final version of the manuscript;

  • accept responsibility for the integrity of the work;

  • respond to questions concerning the research; and

  • assume accountability for published claims.

Artificial intelligence systems cannot independently satisfy these requirements and therefore do not qualify for authorship.

Detailed authorship requirements are governed by the journal's Authorship and Contributorship Policy.

3. Permitted Uses of Generative AI by Authors

Authors may use Generative AI as a supporting tool where its use does not compromise the intellectual integrity of the research.

Permitted uses may include:

  • language editing and grammatical improvement;

  • translation assistance;

  • restructuring or improving the readability of author-generated text;

  • preliminary brainstorming or organization of ideas;

  • assistance with coding or computational tasks;

  • preparation of research-support materials;

  • generation of preliminary analytical suggestions;

  • assistance with visualization or technical formatting; and

  • other support functions where the authors retain meaningful intellectual control.

The use of AI must not substitute for the authors' own theoretical reasoning, interpretation of findings, critical analysis, or scholarly judgment.

4. Disclosure of Generative AI Use

Substantive use of Generative AI must be disclosed transparently.

Disclosure is expected when an AI system materially contributes to:

  • manuscript drafting or substantial rewriting;

  • research design;

  • data analysis;

  • qualitative or quantitative coding;

  • generation of images, figures, or synthetic material;

  • computational modeling;

  • translation that materially affects interpretation;

  • data processing; or

  • other substantive components of the research or manuscript.

The disclosure should identify, where relevant:

  • the name of the AI tool;

  • the version or model, where known;

  • the purpose for which it was used; and

  • the extent of its contribution.

A disclosure may be included in the acknowledgment, declaration, or another appropriate section of the manuscript.

Where AI forms part of the research methodology, its use must be described in the Methods section with sufficient detail to permit scholarly evaluation.

Routine use of conventional spelling checkers, reference managers, formatting tools, or non-generative word-processing functions does not normally require disclosure.

5. Suggested Disclosure Statement

Authors may use the following format when appropriate:

“During the preparation of this manuscript, the author(s) used [name of AI tool] for [specific purpose]. All AI-assisted outputs were critically reviewed, verified, and revised by the author(s), who retain full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the final manuscript.”

This statement should be adapted where AI use forms a substantive component of the research methodology.

6. Verification of AI-Assisted Content

All AI-assisted content must be independently reviewed and verified by the authors.

Generative AI systems may produce:

  • inaccurate statements;

  • fabricated references;

  • nonexistent publications;

  • incorrect quotations;

  • biased interpretations;

  • misleading summaries;

  • methodological errors; or

  • culturally inappropriate representations.

Authors must therefore verify factual claims, references, quotations, statistical outputs, translations, analytical suggestions, and other AI-assisted material before submission.

AI-generated references must never be included without confirming that the cited publication actually exists and that its bibliographic information is accurate.

AI output must not be treated as an authoritative scholarly source when an original, traceable, and appropriate academic source is available.

7. Fabrication and Misrepresentation

The use of Generative AI to fabricate or falsify scholarly evidence is prohibited.

This includes the artificial creation or alteration of:

  • research participants;

  • interview transcripts;

  • field observations;

  • survey responses;

  • empirical data;

  • quotations;

  • bibliographic references;

  • historical or archival evidence;

  • research findings; or

  • other materials presented as authentic research evidence.

Synthetic or simulated data may be used only when methodologically appropriate, transparently identified, and clearly distinguished from empirical data collected from actual participants or sources.

Misrepresentation of AI-generated material as genuine empirical evidence constitutes a serious violation of research integrity and will be handled under the journal's Publication Ethics.

8. AI-Generated Images and Visual Materials

AI-generated or AI-modified images, illustrations, diagrams, or other visual materials must be used transparently.

Where such material forms part of the scholarly argument, data presentation, research methodology, or interpretation, authors must clearly identify the use of AI.

AI-generated visuals must not be presented as authentic documentary, ethnographic, historical, archaeological, or empirical evidence when they do not represent an actual observed object, event, participant, or source.

Authors remain responsible for ensuring that AI-assisted visual materials do not violate copyright, privacy, cultural sensitivity, research ethics, or intellectual property requirements.

9. Confidentiality and Sensitive Research Materials

Authors must not upload confidential, restricted, personally identifiable, or culturally sensitive research material into external AI systems when the privacy, retention, reuse, or security practices of those systems cannot be adequately guaranteed.

Particular caution is required for:

  • interview transcripts;

  • student records;

  • participant identifiers;

  • unpublished research data;

  • confidential institutional documents;

  • culturally restricted knowledge;

  • indigenous knowledge;

  • sacred or sensitive cultural materials;

  • unpublished archival materials; and

  • other information subject to confidentiality obligations.

For socio-cultural, ethnographic, community-based, and indigenous research, researchers must consider not only individual privacy but also collective cultural rights, community expectations, and restrictions concerning the circulation of knowledge.

Use of AI must remain compatible with informed consent, ethical approval, data-protection requirements, and agreements made with research participants or communities.

10. Use of Generative AI in Qualitative Research

Where Generative AI is used to assist qualitative analysis, authors must explain its analytical role clearly.

Examples may include assistance with:

  • transcription processing;

  • preliminary coding;

  • thematic clustering;

  • categorization;

  • textual comparison; or

  • pattern identification.

AI-assisted qualitative analysis must not replace researcher interpretation, contextual understanding, reflexivity, or critical engagement with participants' meanings.

Authors should explain how AI-generated analytical suggestions were reviewed, validated, modified, or rejected by the research team.

11. Use of Generative AI in Quantitative or Computational Research

Where AI tools are used for statistical, computational, or coding tasks, authors must verify the correctness of generated code, calculations, transformations, and analytical outputs.

Authors remain responsible for:

  • methodological appropriateness;

  • reproducibility;

  • validation of analytical procedures;

  • interpretation of results; and

  • reporting of limitations.

AI-generated code or analytical procedures should be documented where necessary to enable evaluation of the research methodology.

12. Use of Generative AI by Reviewers

Manuscripts submitted to IJSL are confidential scholarly documents.

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, supplementary materials, unpublished data, figures, tables, or substantial portions of confidential submissions into external Generative AI systems when confidentiality cannot be assured.

Generative AI must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly evaluation.

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the content, fairness, accuracy, and academic reasoning of their reports.

Where an AI-assisted tool is used for a limited and permissible support function, such use must not compromise manuscript confidentiality or reviewer independence.

Other reviewer responsibilities are governed by the journal's Peer Review Process and Publication Ethics.

13. Use of Generative AI by Editors

Editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and peer-review materials.

Confidential manuscripts or reviewer reports must not be uploaded to external AI systems when data security, retention, reuse, or confidentiality cannot be adequately guaranteed.

Generative AI may assist limited administrative, linguistic, or technical editorial functions, but it must not independently determine:

  • whether a manuscript should be accepted;

  • whether a manuscript should be rejected;

  • whether revisions are sufficient;

  • whether misconduct has occurred; or

  • whether post-publication action is required.

Final editorial judgment must remain under meaningful human responsibility.

14. AI Detection Tools

IJSL may use AI-based or automated tools to assist with editorial screening, similarity assessment, image analysis, reference verification, or research-integrity checks.

However, the output of an automated system will not, by itself, constitute definitive evidence of misconduct or inappropriate AI use.

Automated detection tools may produce false positives, false negatives, or contextually misleading results. Any concern identified through such tools must therefore be assessed by human editors and considered alongside relevant evidence.

No manuscript will be rejected solely because an automated detector indicates possible AI-generated text without further editorial assessment.

15. Undisclosed AI Use

Failure to disclose substantive Generative AI use may result in editorial inquiry.

The appropriate response will depend on:

  • the extent of undisclosed use;

  • whether the use affected the scholarly content;

  • whether the manuscript remains reliable;

  • whether confidentiality or research ethics were compromised; and

  • whether the omission appears inadvertent or intentionally misleading.

Undisclosed AI assistance involving minor language refinement will not automatically be treated as research misconduct. However, undisclosed AI use that materially affects data, methodology, analysis, findings, authorship, or evidentiary integrity may constitute a serious ethical concern.

16. Copyright and Intellectual Property

Authors are responsible for ensuring that AI-assisted content does not violate copyright, licensing restrictions, privacy rights, cultural rights, or other intellectual property obligations.

The use of an AI system does not guarantee that generated content is free from third-party rights.

Detailed provisions concerning copyright ownership, licensing, and reuse are governed by the journal's Copyright Notice.

17. Transparency in Published Articles

Where substantive AI use has been disclosed and is relevant to the interpretation of the article, IJSL may retain the disclosure as part of the published record.

The purpose of disclosure is not to discourage responsible use of emerging technologies, but to ensure that readers can understand the role AI played in producing, analyzing, or presenting scholarly work.

18. Policy Development

Generative AI technologies are evolving rapidly. IJSL may therefore revise this policy periodically to reflect changes in technology, research practice, scholarly publishing standards, legal requirements, and internationally recognized principles of research integrity.

Where a situation is not explicitly covered by this policy, the editorial team will consider the underlying principles of transparency, confidentiality, human accountability, research integrity, and the relevant guidance of recognized scholarly publishing organizations.

In summary, IJSL permits responsible use of Generative AI as a scholarly support tool, provided that its use is transparent, critically verified, ethically appropriate, and remains under meaningful human responsibility. AI may assist scholarship, but it cannot replace authorship, scholarly judgment, or accountability.