AI Tools Usage Policy
Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools
Batulis Civil Law Review recognizes that Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools may assist scholarly work, including language improvement, technical editing, translation support, data processing, and other limited research-related tasks. However, the use of AI tools must be governed by academic integrity, transparency, confidentiality, originality, accountability, and responsible editorial practice.
This policy regulates the use of AI tools by authors, editors, and reviewers in manuscript preparation, editorial handling, and peer review. It is intended to ensure that AI use does not replace scholarly judgment, author responsibility, reviewer independence, or editorial decision-making. This policy refers to relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), WAME recommendations on chatbots and generative AI, and generally accepted standards of publication ethics.
Definition of AI Tools
For the purposes of this policy, AI tools refer to digital systems, platforms, or software that use artificial intelligence techniques, including machine learning, natural language processing, large language models, generative AI, automated translation, image generation, data analysis, summarization, or other automated content-processing technologies.
Examples include, but are not limited to, ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Grammarly, DeepL, QuillBot, AI-based translation tools, AI-assisted writing tools, AI-based data analysis tools, image generators, citation generators, and other similar technologies.
Acceptable Use of AI Tools by Authors
Authors may use AI tools only as supporting tools, provided that such use does not replace the author's scholarly responsibility, legal analysis, originality, interpretation, scientific judgment, or accountability for the manuscript. The interpretation of research findings, substantive legal or scholarly arguments, and final conclusions must remain the responsibility of the authors and must not be delegated to AI systems.
Permissible uses may include grammar checking, spelling correction, language polishing, formatting assistance, reference formatting, translation support with human verification, preliminary literature searching, and technical support for data processing or visualization, provided that the authors critically review, verify, and take full responsibility for all outputs.
Restricted and Prohibited Uses by Authors
AI tools must not be used to fabricate or falsify data, legal materials, case analysis, citations, references, images, findings, or scholarly arguments. AI tools must not be used to delegate the interpretation of research findings, substantive legal or scholarly judgment, or final conclusions to an AI system. AI tools must not be used to generate an entire manuscript or substantial original scholarly content without critical human contribution, verification, and disclosure.
Authors must not use AI tools in a way that results in plagiarism, improper paraphrasing, citation manipulation, copyright infringement, misrepresentation of sources, or misleading presentation of research findings.
Author Responsibility and Accountability
Authors are fully responsible for all content submitted to Batulis Civil Law Review, including content created, revised, translated, analyzed, or otherwise assisted by AI tools. Authors must verify the accuracy, originality, reliability, and legal or scholarly validity of all AI-assisted content.
Authors must ensure that AI-assisted content does not contain plagiarism, fabricated references, inaccurate legal statements, biased interpretation, false claims, confidential information, or materials that infringe copyright or other intellectual property rights.
Authorship and AI
AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. Authorship is limited to human contributors who meet the journal's authorship and contributorship criteria and who can take responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and final content of the manuscript.
AI tools must not be included in the author list, author notes, author contribution statement, or conflict of interest statement as if they were human contributors.
Disclosure Requirements for Authors
Authors are required to disclose the use of AI tools in the preparation of their manuscript when AI contributes to manuscript preparation, research analysis, translation, content generation, image or table generation, coding, data processing, or other activities that materially contribute to the submitted work.
The disclosure should identify the name and version of the AI tool where available, the developer or provider, the purpose and extent of its use, and a statement confirming that the authors reviewed, edited, verified, and take full responsibility for all AI-assisted content.
For minor use limited to spelling, grammar, or formatting corrections, authors should disclose the use when it materially affects the submitted work or when requested by the editorial team. Authors remain responsible for ensuring that any AI-assisted language or formatting does not alter the meaning, accuracy, interpretation, or scholarly content of the manuscript.
Location and Format of AI Disclosure
AI disclosure should be placed in the appropriate section of the manuscript, depending on the nature of the use. If AI tools contributed to data analysis, legal material processing, coding, figure generation, or research methodology, the disclosure should appear in the Methods section. If AI tools were used for language editing, translation support, or formatting, the disclosure may appear in the Acknowledgments or Author Declarations section.
Authors may use the following disclosure format:
During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [insert AI tool name, version, and developer/provider] for [describe the purpose and extent of use]. All AI-assisted outputs were critically reviewed, verified, and edited by the authors. The authors take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and final content of this manuscript.
Use of AI by the Editorial Team
Editors may use AI tools only for limited administrative or technical assistance, such as improving the clarity of editorial correspondence, checking language, organizing non-confidential workflow information, or supporting technical screening. Any use of AI by the editorial team must preserve confidentiality, editorial independence, and meaningful human oversight.
Editors must not use AI tools to make autonomous editorial decisions. AI tools must not replace editorial judgment, manuscript assessment, ethical evaluation, reviewer selection, interpretation of peer review reports, or final editorial decision-making.
Editors remain fully responsible for all editorial actions and decisions, regardless of whether an AI tool has been used for limited administrative or technical assistance.
Prohibition of AI Use by Reviewers in Peer Review
Reviewers are not permitted to use AI tools to analyze, evaluate, summarize, score, or assess manuscripts assigned to them for peer review. Reviewers are also prohibited from using AI tools to draft, generate, or substantially prepare peer review comments, recommendations, or review reports.
Reviewers must not upload, copy, paste, transmit, or submit any manuscript, manuscript section, table, figure, data, supplementary file, review material, or confidential editorial communication into AI tools or external automated systems. Such use may compromise manuscript confidentiality, author privacy, reviewer confidentiality, copyright, and the integrity of the peer review process.
Peer review must remain an independent human scholarly evaluation conducted by the assigned reviewer. Reviewers are personally responsible for the content, accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and integrity of their review reports.
Confidentiality and Data Protection
Authors, editors, and reviewers must not enter confidential, unpublished, personal, sensitive, copyrighted, or restricted materials into AI tools unless they have the legal and ethical authority to do so and the tool provides appropriate confidentiality and data protection safeguards.
Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, author identities, reviewer identities, and unpublished research materials must be treated as confidential throughout the editorial and peer review process.
Editorial Oversight and Non-Compliance
The editorial team may request clarification, correction, additional disclosure, or revision if inappropriate, undisclosed, or excessive AI use is suspected. The journal will not rely solely on automated AI-detection tools to determine misconduct. Any assessment of suspected AI misuse will involve human editorial judgment and, where appropriate, communication with the authors.
Failure to comply with this policy may result in manuscript rejection, correction, expression of concern, retraction, notification to relevant institutions, or other appropriate editorial action in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Editorial Policies and Retraction, Withdrawal, & Correction (R-W-C) Policy.
Appeals and Dispute Resolution
Authors who disagree with an editorial decision related to AI use may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal must explain the grounds for disagreement and provide relevant evidence. Appeals will be handled in accordance with the journal's complaints and appeals procedure.
Policy Review
As AI technologies and scholarly publishing standards continue to evolve, this policy may be reviewed and updated periodically. Authors, editors, and reviewers are expected to consult this policy before submitting, handling, or reviewing manuscripts for Batulis Civil Law Review.
Ethical Framework and References
This policy is informed by publication ethics guidance and recommendations from the following sources:
