Policy on Generative AI

This policy applies to authors, editors, and reviewers of Hasanuddin Journal of Animal Science (HAJAS). It covers generative AI and AI-assisted tools used in writing, editing, and peer review, and follows the COPE position on authorship and AI tools.

1. Authors

AI tools may be used only to improve the language, clarity, and readability of a manuscript. They must not replace the authors’ own scientific work: designing the study, collecting and analysing data, interpreting results, and drawing conclusions.
AI must not be used to create, alter, or fabricate data, results, quotations, or references. Authors must check every reference against the original source.
Every manuscript must include a Generative AI Declaration, placed after the Competing Interest statement and before the Acknowledgment. If AI was used, the declaration names each tool and version, the purpose, and the sections affected. If no AI was used, it says so. AI used as part of the research method must also be described in Materials and Methods. Spelling and grammar checkers built into word processors need not be declared.
AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors, because they cannot take responsibility for the work.
AI-generated images are not accepted, except when AI is itself the subject of the research and its use is described in the methods, or when the images come from a licensed source used in a legally acceptable way.
Authors remain fully responsible for the originality, accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of the manuscript. AI-assisted plagiarism is academic misconduct.

2. Editors

Editors must not upload submitted manuscripts, any part of them, reviewer reports, or personal data of authors and reviewers to generative AI tools.
AI must not be used to judge the scientific merit of a manuscript, to recommend a decision, or to make an editorial decision. A human editor makes every decision and is accountable for it.
Editors may use AI only in a supporting role that does not expose manuscript content, for example to improve the wording of general correspondence.
An editor who uses an AI tool while handling a manuscript must record the tool and the purpose in the editorial file, where the Editor-in-Chief can review it.
Using AI does not reduce the editor’s responsibility for confidentiality, integrity, and the decision taken.

3. Reviewers

Reviewers must not use generative AI or AI-assisted tools at any stage of peer review. This includes using AI to analyse, assess, summarise, or interpret a manuscript, and to write, translate, or polish review comments.
Reviewers must not upload a manuscript or any part of it, including data and supplementary material, to an AI application. Manuscripts under review are confidential.
Reviewers remain personally responsible for their reports. By submitting a report, the reviewer confirms that no AI tool was used. A report that appears to have been produced with AI may be set aside, and the reviewer may be removed from the reviewer pool.

4. Breaches

Undisclosed or prohibited use of AI is handled under the procedure for allegations of misconduct on the Publication Ethics page. Depending on how serious it is, it can lead to rejection, correction, expression of concern, or retraction.