Generative AI Policy

1. Policy Statement

Buletin Ilmiah Nagari Membangun recognizes that generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies may assist scholarly writing, information processing, and certain administrative activities.

However, the use of these technologies introduces important considerations concerning authorship, originality, accuracy, transparency, confidentiality, intellectual property, research integrity, and editorial accountability.

The journal is committed to ensuring that the use of generative AI does not compromise the reliability, authenticity, or ethical integrity of scholarly publications.

This policy establishes requirements for authors, reviewers, editors, and journal personnel regarding the responsible use and disclosure of generative AI tools.

The policy is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and relevant guidance on AI in scholarly publishing.

Human authors, reviewers, and editors remain fully accountable for their scholarly and editorial responsibilities. Generative AI systems cannot replace human responsibility or independent academic judgment.

2. Scope of the Policy

This policy applies to the use of generative AI technologies in activities associated with manuscript preparation, submission, peer review, editorial assessment, production, and publication.

It covers:

  1. Authors and co-authors.

  2. Peer reviewers.

  3. Editors and editorial board members.

  4. Editorial and production personnel.

  5. AI-assisted text generation and editing.

  6. AI-generated or AI-modified images and illustrations.

  7. AI-assisted data processing and analysis.

  8. AI-assisted translation.

  9. Automated literature processing and summarization.

  10. AI tools used in journal administration and publishing operations.

The policy applies regardless of whether a tool is free, subscription-based, institutionally provided, or integrated into other software.

3. Definition of Generative AI

Generative AI refers to computational systems capable of producing or transforming content in response to instructions, prompts, or other inputs.

Such content may include:

  • Written text.

  • Images and illustrations.

  • Computer code.

  • Audio or video.

  • Data summaries.

  • Translations.

  • Analytical interpretations.

  • Other generated or transformed materials.

Examples include large language models, AI writing assistants, image generation systems, and generative tools integrated into document-processing applications.

The journal recognizes that not all automated tools present the same risks.

Conventional spelling checkers, reference management software, and routine formatting tools may be distinguished from systems that generate substantive scholarly content.

4. Fundamental Principles

The journal applies the following principles to generative AI use:

4.1 Human Accountability

Human authors, reviewers, and editors remain responsible for the content and decisions associated with their roles.

4.2 Transparency

Material use of generative AI must be disclosed appropriately.

4.3 Accuracy and Verification

AI-generated information must be independently checked against reliable evidence.

4.4 Originality

AI must not be used to conceal plagiarism or misrepresent another person's intellectual contribution.

4.5 Confidentiality

Unpublished manuscripts and confidential editorial information must be protected.

4.6 Intellectual Property

AI-assisted content must comply with applicable copyright, licensing, and third-party rights.

4.7 Ethical Integrity

AI must not be used to fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent research and community engagement activities.

4.8 Human Editorial Judgment

Editorial and peer-review decisions must remain under the responsibility of qualified human decision-makers.

5. Generative AI and Authorship

Generative AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors of manuscripts submitted to Buletin Ilmiah Nagari Membangun.

AI systems cannot fulfill the responsibilities associated with scholarly authorship, including:

  1. Taking accountability for the accuracy and integrity of a publication.

  2. Approving the final manuscript.

  3. Responding to scholarly criticism.

  4. Disclosing conflicts of interest.

  5. Accepting ethical and legal responsibilities.

  6. Participating in investigations or post-publication corrections.

Only eligible human contributors may be recognized as authors.

The use of AI to assist manuscript preparation does not transfer responsibility from the authors to the technology provider.

6. Permitted AI-Assisted Activities for Authors

Authors may use generative AI tools for limited supporting activities when such use is consistent with this policy.

Examples may include:

  • Improving grammar and language clarity.

  • Assisting with translation.

  • Suggesting alternative sentence structures.

  • Improving readability and organization.

  • Supporting preliminary brainstorming.

  • Assisting with code development, subject to verification.

  • Supporting data processing when the methods are transparent and appropriate.

  • Creating illustrative materials when properly disclosed and ethically permissible.

Permission to use an AI tool does not imply that its output may be incorporated without critical evaluation.

Authors must verify the accuracy, originality, and appropriateness of all AI-assisted content.

7. Prohibited Uses of Generative AI by Authors

Authors must not use generative AI to:

  1. Fabricate research data or evaluation results.

  2. Invent community engagement activities.

  3. Create false participant responses or testimonials.

  4. Fabricate interviews, surveys, or observations.

  5. Generate fictitious references or citations.

  6. Misrepresent AI-generated content as independently verified evidence.

  7. Conceal plagiarism through automated paraphrasing.

  8. Produce misleading documentation of activities.

  9. Manipulate images to falsely represent actual events.

  10. Impersonate researchers, participants, or community partners.

  11. Circumvent ethical approval, consent, or confidentiality requirements.

  12. Conceal material AI use that requires disclosure.

Authors must not use AI-generated narratives as substitutes for actual implementation records or empirical observations.

8. Mandatory Disclosure of Generative AI Use

Authors must disclose material use of generative AI in the preparation or development of submitted manuscripts.

Disclosure should identify:

  1. The name of the AI tool or system.

  2. The provider or developer, where relevant.

  3. The purpose of its use.

  4. The part of the manuscript or scholarly process affected.

  5. The nature of the generated or modified content.

  6. The extent of human review and verification.

Disclosure must be sufficiently specific to allow editors and readers to understand the role of the technology.

A general statement such as "AI was used" may be insufficient when AI materially contributed to the content, analysis, or presentation of the work.

9. Generative AI Disclosure Statement

Authors who use generative AI should include a dedicated statement titled:

Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies

The statement should appear in a location specified by the journal's Author Guidelines.

Example A: Language Assistance

"During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [tool name and provider] to assist with language editing and readability. The authors reviewed and revised the resulting text and take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the manuscript."

Example B: Translation Assistance

"The authors used [tool name and provider] to assist with translating portions of the manuscript. The translated content was reviewed and verified by the authors, who remain fully responsible for its accuracy and meaning."

Example C: AI-Assisted Data Analysis

"The authors used [tool name, provider, and relevant version] to assist with [specific analytical task]. The analytical procedures and outputs were independently reviewed and verified by the authors. The methods are described in the manuscript."

Example D: No Generative AI Use

"The authors declare that no generative AI tools were used to generate or materially modify the scholarly content of this manuscript."

Authors must provide truthful declarations.

The journal should distinguish between routine non-generative tools and AI systems that materially contribute to scholarly content.

10. AI-Assisted Scientific and Scholarly Analysis

When AI tools contribute to data processing, analysis, coding, classification, or interpretation, authors must provide sufficient methodological information for appropriate evaluation.

Relevant information may include:

  • Tool or model name.

  • Provider.

  • Version or date of access, where relevant.

  • Purpose of use.

  • Relevant settings or procedures.

  • Nature of the input data.

  • Human verification methods.

  • Limitations affecting reproducibility.

Authors must not rely solely on an AI-generated interpretation when making scholarly claims.

The reported findings must be supported by appropriate evidence.

11. AI and Community Engagement Documentation

The journal places particular importance on the authenticity of community engagement documentation.

Manuscripts may report activities such as:

  • Community training.

  • Technology transfer.

  • Health education.

  • Agricultural assistance.

  • Environmental interventions.

  • Village or nagari development programs.

  • Community empowerment initiatives.

  • Small enterprise development.

Authors must ensure that descriptions of these activities accurately reflect events that occurred.

Generative AI must not be used to invent:

  1. Activity locations.

  2. Participants or beneficiaries.

  3. Attendance records.

  4. Training sessions.

  5. Community responses.

  6. Program outputs.

  7. Evaluation results.

  8. Photographic evidence.

  9. Claims of social or economic impact.

AI-generated simulations or illustrations must be clearly distinguished from authentic documentation.

12. AI-Generated Images and Visual Materials

The use of AI-generated or AI-modified visual content requires particular care.

AI-generated illustrations may be considered when they serve a legitimate explanatory purpose and are appropriately disclosed.

However, AI-generated images must not be presented as authentic photographic evidence of community engagement activities.

Authors must not use generative AI to:

  • Fabricate photographs of events.

  • Create fictitious participants.

  • Alter documentary images to misrepresent actual conditions.

  • Add or remove people or objects in a way that changes the evidentiary meaning of an image.

  • Generate misleading visual representations of results.

Any permitted AI-generated illustration should be clearly labeled.

For example:

"Illustrative image generated using [AI tool name]; not a photograph of the reported activity."

Where applicable, authors must comply with copyright, consent, and image integrity requirements.

13. AI and References

Authors are responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of every reference cited in their manuscripts.

Generative AI systems may produce:

  • Nonexistent publications.

  • Incorrect article titles.

  • Fabricated author names.

  • Inaccurate publication years.

  • Incorrect DOI information.

  • Misleading summaries of genuine sources.

Authors must verify references against the original publications or reliable bibliographic records.

AI-generated reference lists must not be accepted without independent verification.

The journal may request clarification or correction when references appear inaccurate or fabricated.

14. AI Is Not an Authoritative Scholarly Source

Generative AI systems must not be treated or cited as authoritative sources of scientific evidence, factual findings, or scholarly conclusions.

Authors must support substantive academic claims with appropriate primary literature, credible research publications, official documentation, or other verifiable evidence.

An AI-generated response does not constitute independent scholarly evidence merely because it is presented confidently or includes references.

When the output of an AI system is itself the subject of a study, authors may document the tool, prompts, outputs, and procedures as research materials.

Such documentation is different from treating AI-generated answers as authoritative evidence for unrelated scientific claims.

15. AI-Assisted Translation

AI-assisted translation may be used to support communication across languages.

Authors remain responsible for ensuring that translations accurately preserve:

  1. Technical terminology.

  2. Research objectives.

  3. Methods.

  4. Findings.

  5. Ethical statements.

  6. Community and cultural context.

  7. The meaning of original sources.

Authors should exercise particular care when translating local terms, community expressions, or culturally specific concepts.

AI-assisted translation must not introduce unsupported claims or alter the intended meaning of participant statements.

Material use of generative AI translation tools should be disclosed appropriately.

16. AI and Plagiarism Prevention

Generative AI must not be used to disguise copied material or misrepresent intellectual contributions.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that AI-assisted text:

  • Does not contain unattributed copied material.

  • Does not reproduce protected content without appropriate permission.

  • Does not misrepresent the originality of ideas.

  • Does not conceal substantial overlap with existing publications.

  • Does not introduce fabricated references.

A low similarity score does not establish that AI-assisted content is original or ethically acceptable.

Plagiarism concerns will be handled according to the journal's Plagiarism Policy.

17. Copyright and Intellectual Property

Authors must ensure that AI-assisted materials comply with applicable copyright and intellectual property requirements.

The use of generative AI does not automatically establish ownership of generated content or guarantee that the output is free from third-party rights.

Authors should consider:

  1. The terms of service of the AI provider.

  2. The provenance of material used in prompts.

  3. Potential reproduction of protected content.

  4. The rights associated with generated outputs.

  5. Relevant institutional or contractual obligations.

  6. The journal's copyright and licensing requirements.

Authors remain responsible for obtaining necessary permissions and ensuring lawful publication.

18. Privacy, Consent, and Confidential Information

Authors must not upload sensitive or confidential research information to external generative AI services without an appropriate legal and ethical basis and adequate safeguards.

Protected information may include:

  • Personal data of community participants.

  • Unpublished interview transcripts.

  • Confidential survey responses.

  • Identifiable health information.

  • Restricted institutional records.

  • Confidential community partner information.

  • Sensitive field documentation.

The journal's open-access publishing model does not authorize disclosure of confidential information to AI providers.

Authors must comply with applicable privacy, consent, and institutional requirements.

19. Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers are responsible for providing independent, confidential, and evidence-based scholarly assessments.

Reviewers must personally examine the manuscripts assigned to them and exercise their own professional judgment.

Reviewers must not delegate the intellectual responsibility for evaluating a manuscript to a generative AI system.

Reviewers remain accountable for the accuracy, fairness, and substance of their reports.

20. Restrictions on AI Use During Peer Review

Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts, supplementary materials, reviewer reports, or confidential editorial correspondence to external generative AI systems without explicit authorization from the journal and appropriate confidentiality safeguards.

Reviewers must not use generative AI to replace their own scholarly assessment by automatically:

  1. Evaluating manuscript quality.

  2. Synthesizing or condensing confidential manuscript content.

  3. Generating substantive reviewer judgments.

  4. Recommending acceptance or rejection.

  5. Identifying supposed methodological defects without independent verification.

  6. Producing a complete peer-review report in place of personal assessment.

Routine non-generative language correction of reviewer-authored text may be distinguished from substantive AI-generated scholarly assessment.

Any use of external tools must remain consistent with confidentiality requirements and the journal's authorized procedures.

21. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for maintaining the integrity, confidentiality, independence, and fairness of editorial decisions.

Generative AI must not replace the editor's responsibility for:

  • Manuscript suitability assessment.

  • Reviewer selection.

  • Evaluation of reviewer reports.

  • Editorial decisions.

  • Publication ethics investigations.

  • Conflict-of-interest management.

  • Corrections and retractions.

Editors must not treat AI-generated recommendations as independent scholarly assessments.

Final editorial decisions must be made by authorized human editors.

22. Restrictions on AI Use by Editors

Editors must not upload confidential manuscript content or unpublished editorial information to unauthorized external AI services.

Editors should not use generative AI to produce automated acceptance or rejection decisions without independent human evaluation.

AI-generated summaries or assessments must not substitute for reading the manuscript and considering relevant reviewer reports.

Any permitted use of AI must comply with confidentiality, privacy, institutional security, and publication ethics requirements.

23. Generative AI in Journal Administration

The journal recognizes that automated tools may support certain administrative and production activities.

Potential uses may include:

  • Formatting assistance.

  • Routine language editing.

  • Metadata quality checks.

  • Accessibility improvements.

  • Administrative communication support.

  • Technical workflow assistance.

These uses must be evaluated according to their risks and operational suitability.

AI tools must not be used to generate false editorial records, fabricated reviewer reports, or misleading publication information.

Administrative efficiency must not compromise scholarly integrity or confidentiality.

24. Disclosure of AI Tools Used by the Journal

Buletin Ilmiah Nagari Membangun is committed to transparency concerning automated and AI-assisted tools used in its own editorial and publishing operations.

When the journal adopts tools that materially affect editorial assessment, manuscript processing, content production, or publication records, it should disclose their relevant functions and the scope of human oversight.

Such disclosures should identify, where appropriate:

  1. The tool or service.

  2. The purpose for which it is used.

  3. The stage of the publishing process affected.

  4. Whether confidential manuscripts or personal information are processed.

  5. The nature of human verification or supervision.

  6. Any material limitations relevant to authors or readers.

The journal should distinguish between conventional automation, similarity detection software, and generative AI systems.

The journal must not claim to use a particular AI tool or automated editorial system unless that use has been verified.

25. AI-Assisted Editorial Decision Support

If the journal considers implementing AI-assisted editorial decision-support tools, their use should be subject to appropriate assessment and oversight.

The journal should consider:

  • Accuracy and reliability.

  • Potential bias.

  • Confidentiality and data protection.

  • Transparency to authors.

  • Human accountability.

  • The possibility of erroneous recommendations.

  • The ability to review and challenge decisions.

AI-generated outputs should be treated as supporting information rather than authoritative editorial conclusions.

The editor remains responsible for the final decision.

26. AI-Generated Content Detection

The journal may consider tools intended to identify potentially AI-generated content.

However, automated AI-detection results must not be treated as conclusive evidence that an author has violated this policy.

Such tools may produce false positives and false negatives.

Editors should evaluate concerns using relevant evidence, including:

  1. The manuscript's content.

  2. Author disclosures.

  3. Supporting research documentation.

  4. Inconsistencies requiring clarification.

  5. Relevant explanations provided by authors.

Authors should have an appropriate opportunity to respond to substantive allegations.

The journal must not conclude that misconduct occurred solely because an automated detector classified text as AI-generated.

27. Investigation of Suspected AI Misuse

When credible concerns arise about inappropriate AI use, the journal should follow a fair and proportionate assessment procedure.

Step 1: Identification

A concern may be identified through editorial screening, peer review, author disclosure, or a credible report.

Step 2: Preliminary Assessment

The editor examines the nature and seriousness of the concern.

Step 3: Author Clarification

Where appropriate, authors are informed of the substantive concern and given a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Step 4: Evidence Evaluation

The editor evaluates relevant information, which may include manuscript content, supporting records, and author explanations.

Step 5: Editorial Action

Depending on the findings, the journal may:

  • Request clarification.

  • Require a corrected AI disclosure statement.

  • Request manuscript revision.

  • Reject a submitted manuscript.

  • Refer serious concerns to an appropriate institution.

  • Issue a correction, expression of concern, or retraction for a published article when justified.

Actions should be proportionate to the evidence and consistent with the journal's publication ethics policies.

28. AI Misuse Identified After Publication

Concerns about undisclosed or inappropriate AI use may arise after publication.

The journal will consider whether the issue affects:

  1. The accuracy of the article.

  2. The reliability of its findings.

  3. The originality of its content.

  4. The validity of references.

  5. Copyright or privacy rights.

  6. Ethical compliance.

  7. The transparency of the scholarly record.

A missing AI disclosure does not automatically require retraction.

Where the article remains reliable, a correction or updated disclosure may be sufficient.

Where AI misuse has resulted in fundamentally unreliable findings or another serious problem meeting the grounds for retraction, the journal may consider retraction in accordance with its Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections policy.

29. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for:

  1. Using AI tools ethically and transparently.

  2. Disclosing material AI assistance.

  3. Verifying generated information.

  4. Ensuring the accuracy of references.

  5. Protecting confidential data.

  6. Respecting copyright and licensing requirements.

  7. Preventing fabricated or misleading content.

  8. Maintaining accurate research and community engagement records.

  9. Reviewing all AI-assisted manuscript content.

  10. Accepting full responsibility for the submitted and published work.

The use of AI does not reduce authors' responsibility for compliance with journal policies.

30. Responsibilities of Reviewers and Editors

Reviewers and editors must:

  • Maintain confidentiality.

  • Exercise independent scholarly judgment.

  • Avoid unauthorized disclosure of manuscript information.

  • Disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

  • Avoid inappropriate delegation of intellectual responsibilities to AI.

  • Follow authorized editorial procedures.

  • Report credible concerns about AI misuse.

  • Maintain professional accountability for their decisions and assessments.

The journal should provide appropriate guidance to editorial personnel concerning the risks and permitted uses of AI tools.

31. Training and Policy Awareness

The journal should support awareness of responsible AI use among authors, reviewers, editors, and journal personnel.

Relevant topics may include:

  • AI disclosure.

  • Hallucinated references.

  • Fabricated data.

  • AI-generated images.

  • Copyright and licensing.

  • Privacy and confidentiality.

  • AI-detection limitations.

  • Human accountability.

  • Appropriate editorial oversight.

Training and guidance should reflect developments in technology and scholarly publishing standards.

32. Policy Review and Updates

Generative AI technologies and associated ethical considerations continue to evolve.

The journal should periodically review this policy to maintain consistency with relevant publication ethics guidance, technological developments, institutional requirements, and applicable laws.

Policy revisions should be communicated through the journal's official website.

The journal should ensure that its Author Guidelines, reviewer instructions, editorial procedures, and AI disclosure requirements remain consistent with this policy.

33. Contact Information

Questions concerning the use or disclosure of generative AI may be directed to:

Editorial Office
Buletin Ilmiah Nagari Membangun
Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat (LPPM)
Universitas Andalas
Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia

Email: nagari.lppm@unand.ac.id
Alternative email: nagari.lppm.unand@gmail.com

Website: https://buletinnagari.lppm.unand.ac.id/index.php/bln

34. Related Policies and References

This policy should be read alongside the journal's:

  • Publication Ethics and Policies

  • Allegations of Misconduct

  • Authorship and Contributorship

  • Complaints and Appeals

  • Conflicts of Interest

  • Data and Reproducibility

  • Ethical Oversight

  • Intellectual Property

  • Journal Management

  • Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

  • Plagiarism Policy

  • Peer-Review Processes

References