AI Tools Usage Policy

1. 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.

The examples above are illustrative rather than exhaustive. Authors, editors, and reviewers must comply with this policy regardless of the particular tool, platform, provider, or model used.

↑ Back to Top

2. 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 scholarly or legal 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 and spelling correction;
• language polishing and readability improvements;
• formatting assistance and reference formatting;
• translation support, provided that the translation is checked by the authors;
• preliminary literature searching, provided that original sources are independently located and verified; and
• technical support for data processing or visualization, provided that the underlying methods and outputs are critically reviewed and verified.

Authors must critically review, verify, and take full responsibility for all AI-assisted outputs. AI assistance must not compromise the originality, reliability, accuracy, confidentiality, or scholarly integrity of the submitted manuscript.

↑ Back to Top

3. 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 generate an entire manuscript or substantial original scholarly content without meaningful critical human contribution, verification, and disclosure.

AI tools must not be used to delegate the interpretation of research findings, substantive scholarly or legal judgment, arguments, or final conclusions to an AI system.

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.

AI-generated or AI-assisted content must not be presented as independently conducted research, analysis, observation, legal reasoning, empirical evidence, or scholarly judgment when it was not actually produced through the authors' research and intellectual work.

The following are examples of AI use that are not permitted in the preparation of a manuscript:

• asking an AI tool to write the entire paper and presenting the resulting work as the authors' own scholarly work;
• generating or inventing research data, observations, measurements, or other empirical evidence that were not actually obtained through the research;
• generating statistical results, analyses, tables, or numerical findings that were not actually produced from the underlying research data or performed analyses;
• asking an AI tool to produce research conclusions or substantive interpretations without conducting the underlying analysis and scholarly evaluation;
• generating or inventing references, citations, legal authorities, case materials, quotations, or other sources that cannot be independently verified;
• listing an AI tool as an author or co-author, or attributing scholarly responsibility to an AI system; and
• uploading unpublished papers, research data, reviewer materials, personal information, confidential correspondence, or other confidential materials to public or otherwise unauthorized AI systems.

↑ Back to Top

4. Author Responsibility and Accountability

Authors are fully responsible for all content submitted to SASI, 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.

Authors remain responsible for checking original sources, confirming quotations and legal authorities, validating research findings, and ensuring that all claims are supported by appropriate evidence. AI-generated output must not be treated as a substitute for primary sources or independent scholarly verification.

↑ Back to Top

5. 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.

Authors remain accountable for the entire manuscript, including any content produced or modified with AI assistance. Disclosure of AI use does not transfer responsibility from the authors to the AI tool or its provider.

↑ Back to Top

6. 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 of the AI tool and its version, where available;
• the developer or provider of the tool;
• 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 AI-assisted language or formatting does not alter the meaning, accuracy, interpretation, or scholarly content of the manuscript.

Disclosure does not make an otherwise inappropriate use of AI acceptable. The editorial team may request clarification or supporting information where necessary to assess compliance with this policy.

↑ Back to Top

7. 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 or the relevant methodological description.
• If AI tools were used for language editing, translation support, or formatting, the disclosure may appear in the Acknowledgments or Author Declarations section.
• If AI use affects multiple parts of the research, the disclosure should describe the relevant uses clearly enough for readers and editors to understand the extent of the assistance.

Authors may use the following disclosure format, adapted to their actual use:

Authors must replace the bracketed text with accurate information. The statement must not be used to imply AI assistance that did not occur, or to conceal the extent of material AI use.

↑ Back to Top

8. 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 must not upload unpublished manuscripts, confidential reviewer reports, author responses, or other confidential editorial materials to external AI systems unless the journal has explicitly authorized the system and established appropriate safeguards consistent with its ethical and confidentiality obligations.

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.

↑ Back to Top

9. Prohibition of AI Use by Reviewers in Peer Review

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.

Reviewers must also:

• maintain the confidentiality of all submitted materials and editorial communications;
• provide independent, reasoned, and constructive scholarly assessments;
• avoid relying on AI-generated evaluations or recommendations as a substitute for their own expertise;
• inform the editor of any circumstances that may affect their ability to provide an independent assessment; and
• comply with the journal's peer review and publication ethics policies.

Failure to comply with this policy may result in termination of the review assignment, removal from the journal's reviewer database where appropriate, or other action consistent with the journal's editorial and publication ethics policies.

↑ Back to Top

10. 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 use is permitted under applicable journal requirements and appropriate 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.

Users of AI tools must consider how the tool processes submitted information, including whether prompts or uploaded materials may be retained, accessed by third parties, or used for model improvement. A claim by a provider that a service is private or secure does not by itself authorize the disclosure of confidential manuscript or editorial materials.

Where confidentiality or authorization is uncertain, the material must not be submitted to the AI system. The editorial team should be consulted when clarification is needed.

↑ Back to Top

11. 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.

The editorial response will depend on the nature, extent, seriousness, and stage of the suspected breach. Where appropriate and consistent with the journal's policies, possible actions may include:

• requesting an explanation or additional disclosure from the authors;
• requesting corrections or a revised manuscript;
• rejecting a manuscript when the breach is serious or cannot be satisfactorily resolved;
• issuing a correction or expression of concern for an affected published article;
• considering retraction where justified by the circumstances; or
• notifying relevant institutions or other appropriate parties where warranted.

Any action must be handled in accordance with SASI's Publication Ethics and Editorial Policies and Retraction, Withdrawal, & Correction (R-W-C) Policy.

The use of an AI-detection score alone is not sufficient evidence to establish misconduct. Editorial assessments must consider the available evidence, the authors' explanations, and the relevant publication ethics requirements.

↑ Back to Top

12. 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 or clarification.

Appeals will be handled in accordance with the journal's applicable complaints and appeals procedure. The editorial team may review the available evidence, request additional information, or seek an independent assessment where appropriate.

Submitting an appeal does not automatically suspend an editorial decision or guarantee that the decision will be reversed. The outcome must be based on a fair assessment of the evidence and the journal's published policies.

↑ Back to Top

13. 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 SASI.

Any material revision to this policy should be communicated transparently and applied consistently. The journal may clarify or update its requirements to address changes in AI capabilities, publication ethics guidance, confidentiality risks, or scholarly publishing practices.

↑ Back to Top

14. Ethical Framework and References

This policy is informed by publication ethics guidance and recommendations from the following sources:

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
• COPE discussion document on artificial intelligence and decision-making.
• World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) recommendations on chatbots and generative AI in scholarly manuscripts.

These references provide general ethical guidance. The specific requirements published in this policy govern AI use in submissions, editorial handling, and peer review at SASI.

↑ Back to Top