AI Policy

1. Purpose of the Policy

The purpose of this policy is not to ban technology, but to ensure that technology serves good scholarship.

This policy exists because AI tools such as ChatGPT, Grammarly, DeepL, and others are increasingly used in academic writing. Some uses are helpful and harmless. Others can undermine the integrity of research, especially when used without transparency.

The purpose is simple: to guide all parties authors, reviewers, and editors on the responsible, ethical, and transparent use of AI. GAJIE aims to remain a trusted venue for Islamic education research, where human intellect and moral responsibility always come first.

 

2. Scope of the Policy

This policy applies to all parties involved in the publication process at GAJIE, including:

• Authors submitting manuscripts
• Peer reviewers evaluating submissions
• Editors making editorial decisions
• The publisher and editorial assistants managing the workflow

Any interaction with a manuscript at any stage whether writing, reading, or deciding falls under this policy. No exceptions are made based on how "minor" or "major" the AI use may be.

 

3. Basic Principles

Four core values guide this policy:

a. Humans remain in charge. AI may assist, but it cannot decide, take credit, or assume responsibility. A human author must always be accountable for every claim, every reference, and every conclusion.

b. Honesty is non-negotiable. If AI meaningfully shapes the writing or review process, that use must be disclosed. Transparency is respected far more than the use of AI itself.

c. Confidentiality matters. Manuscripts under review are private. Uploading them to any public AI tool even for language improvement violates that trust.

d. Fairness across authors. Some authors have access to advanced AI tools; others do not. This policy ensures that no one gains an unfair advantage by concealing AI use.

These principles are not merely rules. They are commitments shared by all members of the scholarly community.

 

4. Provisions for Authors

a.       Use that does NOT require disclosure:

• Spell-checkers, grammar tools (e.g., Grammarly, LanguageTool), and reference formatters (e.g., Mendeley, Zotero)
• AI used to translate a paragraph already written by the author, provided the author verifies and takes ownership of the final version
• AI used to find relevant literature, provided the author reads and verifies the sources

 

b.      Use that IS permitted but MUST be disclosed:

• AI used to generate an outline, restructure arguments, or rewrite entire paragraphs
• AI used to help interpret data or suggest alternative explanations
• AI used to create images, figures, or visual abstracts

For any such use, a short statement must be included in the Acknowledgements section or as a separate section titled "AI Use Statement" before the references. A simple statement such as the following is sufficient:

"The author used [ChatGPT/DeepSeek/Copilot, version X, accessed Month Year] to help restructure the literature review section and improve the clarity of the discussion. All final content, interpretations, and conclusions remain the sole responsibility of the author."

 

Prohibited uses (strictly forbidden):

• Listing an AI tool as a co-author. No exceptions.
• Using AI to generate fake data, fake results, or fake references. This constitutes fraud.
• Using AI to write an entire paper with minimal intellectual contribution from the author. This is delegation, not authorship.

 

5. Provisions for Peer Reviewers

Strict prohibitions for reviewers:

• No part of a manuscript may be uploaded into a public AI tool such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Copilot.
• Reason: The manuscript is confidential. The author trusts the journal, and the journal trusts the reviewer. Uploading a manuscript to an external server results in loss of control over the text, which constitutes a serious ethical violation.
• Reviewers must not ask AI to "write a review" or "suggest a decision." A review is a professional opinion based on the reviewer's own reading, thinking, and judgment. An AI-generated review is not a valid review.

Permitted use (with caution):

• Grammar or spelling tools that run locally on the reviewer's own device (e.g., a word processor's spell-check function) may be used, though caution is still advised.

 

6. Provisions for Editors

Strict prohibitions for editors:

• Editorial decisions may not be delegated to AI. No tool can replace editorial judgment regarding originality, relevance, and scholarly soundness. Asking ChatGPT whether to "accept" or "reject" is not permitted.
• Submitted manuscripts may not be uploaded to any AI tool, even for language polishing. If a manuscript requires copyediting, it must be sent to human copyeditors or returned to the author for revision.

Permitted use (with caution):

• AI may be used to help find suitable peer reviewers (e.g., matching keywords from a manuscript to reviewer profiles). This constitutes administrative assistance, not editorial judgment.
• Plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin, iThenticate), which already incorporates AI, may be used as a standard practice.

 

 

7. Sanctions for Violations

The preferred approach is education and guidance rather than punishment. However, when rules are knowingly or carelessly broken, action must be taken to protect the journal and the broader scholarly community.

Sanctions are applied according to the level of violation:

Level	Definition	Consequence
Minor	Use of AI without disclosure, but仅限于 minor language or formatting assistance	The author or reviewer is asked to add the missing disclosure statement. No further penalty.
Moderate	Use of AI to generate substantial content without disclosure, or submission of an AI-written review	The manuscript or review is rejected. The reason is explained, and a confidential note is kept.
Serious	Listing AI as a co-author, creating fake data or fake references using AI, or uploading confidential manuscripts to public AI tools	The submission is rejected. The author's institution or the reviewer's organization is notified. The individual may be banned from future submissions or reviews for a specified period.
Post-publication	Discovery of a serious violation after the article has been published	A formal retraction is issued. A retraction notice is published explaining the reason. All indexing databases (e.g., Google Scholar, Garuda, DOAJ, and eventually EBSCO) are notified.

Sanctions are not a source of satisfaction. However, allowing preventable misconduct to damage the journal's reputation is even less acceptable.

 

8. Policy Updates

AI technology is evolving rapidly faster than academic policies typically do.

This document is therefore not permanent. It is a living policy.

GAJIE commits to reviewing this AI policy at least once per year or whenever a major new AI tool raises significant ethical concerns. When updates are made:

• Changes will be announced clearly on the journal website.
• The version number and date of the latest update will be noted at the top of this page.
• A brief notification will be sent to authors with active submissions (if the changes directly affect them).

Input from the scholarly community is also welcome. If a gap in this policy is identified, or if a situation arises that this policy does not anticipate, correspondence may be sent to gajie@iai-tabah.ac.id. The journal is learning alongside the community.