Generative AI Policy

INTRODUCTION

English Teaching Learning Program, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher Training, Universitas Islam Negeri Madura (UIN Madura) is aware that artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to assist authors in research and writing processes. UIN Madura is excited to see the potential of generative AI tools if used to come up with ideas, speed up research, analyze results, improve writing, organize submissions, help authors writing in a second language and speed up research and sharing. UIN Madura is providing guidance to authors, editors and reviewers on the use of such tools, and this possibility will evolve as AI is fast emerging.

Generative AI tools (such as large language models (LLMs) and multimodal models) are continuously being developed and evolving and are very useful for business and consumers. Generative AI has a lot of potential to increase creativity for authors, but there are also the dangers associated with the current generation of those tools. Generative AI can produce everything from text generation, image synthesis, audio and synthetic content. Examples of such tools are ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Claude, NovelAI, Jasper AI, DALL-E, Midjourney and Runway.

Some of the risks with the operation of generative AI tools today are:

  1. Inaccuracy and bias: Generative AI tools are statistical as opposed to factual. So, they can produce incorrect data, false information (sometimes referred to as hallucinations) or biases that are hard to identify, verify and correct.
  2. Lack of attribution: Generative AI doesn't always fit into the best practices of the world literature on how to attribute ideas, quotes or citations properly.
  3. Confidentiality and intellectual property risks: Generative AI tools are commonly used in third-party applications that may lack confidentiality, data security and copyright protection.
  4. Unintended uses: Generative AI developers can repurpose the input or output data generated by the user (e.g. for AI training). This practice is likely to jeopardize authors’ rights and publishers’ rights, too.

AUTHORS

Authors can use generative AI tools like ChatGPT, GPT models to improve the grammar, language and readability of their papers. Authors are responsible for the originality, validity and integrity of their manuscripts. Generative AI tools are used by authors so their use must be ethical and that means following our journal's editorial rules regarding authorship and publication ethics. Authors must review the output of any AI tool and the correctness of the output.

The UIN MADURA supports the responsible use of generative AI tools to maintain high data security, confidentiality and copyright protection in such cases as the following:

  • Idea generation and idea exploration
  • Language improvement
  • Interactive online search with LLM-enhanced search engines
  • Literature classification
  • Coding assistance
  • Authors must certify their submission is scientifically and scholarly valid and created by the author.

Generative AI tools should not be credited as authors, since they are not responsible for the content they submit or for copyright and licensing agreements. Authorship is about responsibility for the content, consent to publish the content through a publishing agreement and contractual guarantees of the integrity of the work, and all these things need to be in place for authorship. These are precisely human responsibilities that generative AI tools cannot meet.

Authors should strongly address the use of generative AI tools in their articles and also clearly state the name of the tool (the version number, if any), how it was used and why. In the case of article submission, that statement should be in Methods or Acknowledgements. This transparency enables editors to judge the use of generative AI in a responsible manner. The UIN MADURA will be the one who decides when the work will be published but there is no question that it will be published in accordance with the guidelines and standards.

If an author intends to use an AI tool, they must make sure that it is appropriate and robust for their intended purpose. They must verify that the terms of such a tool are secure and ethical in terms of intellectual property rights, confidentiality and security.

Authors should avoid submitting manuscripts that use generative AI tools in ways that compromise fundamental researcher and author responsibilities, for example:

  • text or code generation without rigorous revision
  • synthetic data generation to replace missing data without robust methodology
  • generation of any types of content that are inaccurate, including abstracts or supplemental materials

These types of cases may be subject to editorial investigation.

UIN MADURA has been prohibiting generative AI from being used in creating and manipulating images and figures, as well as original research data, for use in our publications. Images and figures include pictures, charts, data tables, medical images, snippets of images, computer code and formulas. Manipulation refers to adding, deleting, or hiding features in an image or figure.

Human oversight and transparency must inform the development of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies as part of the research process. Our research ethics guidelines are continuously being updated to keep pace with the developments in generative AI technologies. The UIN MADURA will keep improving our editorial guidelines as the technology and ethical standards in research evolve.

EDITORS AND PEER REVIEWERS

IAES is committed to holding editorial integrity and transparency at the highest level. Editors and peer reviewers using manuscripts in generative AI systems could violate confidentiality, ownership rights, and privacy, including personal information. Therefore, editors and peer reviewers are prohibited from uploading files, images, or information from unpublished manuscripts into generative AI tools. The rightsholder's intellectual property rights may be violated if this policy is not followed.

Editors

Editors are fundamental to the quality and integrity of research. It is therefore imperative that editors keep the information about the submission and peer review of research content confidential.

The use of manuscripts in generative AI systems could present significant risks to confidentiality as well as to proprietary rights, data security, and other issues. Thus, editors are not allowed to upload unpublished manuscripts and any associated files, images, or information to generative AI tools.

Peer reviewers

Peer reviewers, who are selected as subject matter experts, should not use generative AI to evaluate or condense submitted articles or any portion of them for review purposes. Peer reviewers must also not upload unpublished manuscripts or project proposals, and any files, images, or information associated with them into generative AI tools.

And while generative AI may only be used to improve the language of the review, peer reviewers will always be responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their assessments.