Artificial Intelligence (AI) Usage Policy

Jurnal Kebijakan Publik dan Pembangunan Daerah recognizes that artificial intelligence (AI) tools may support certain aspects of scholarly writing and editorial work. However, the use of AI must remain transparent, responsible, and consistent with academic integrity, confidentiality, authorship, copyright, data integrity, and publication ethics.

Human authors, reviewers, and editors remain fully responsible for all scholarly, editorial, and ethical decisions. AI tools cannot assume authorship, accountability, or responsibility for published scholarly work.

Use of Artificial Intelligence by Authors

Use of Assistive AI Tools

Authors may use assistive AI tools to improve language clarity, grammar, spelling, readability, formatting, or structural presentation of a manuscript. Disclosure of such assistive use is not required, provided that the tools do not generate substantive scholarly content or materially alter the intellectual contribution of the manuscript.

Examples of assistive AI tools include spelling checkers, grammar correction systems, language-editing applications, and AI-assisted proofreading tools.

Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, meaning, and scholarly quality of all content submitted to Jurnal Kebijakan Publik dan Pembangunan Daerah, regardless of whether assistive AI tools have been used.

Use of Generative AI

The use of generative AI tools capable of producing substantive original content, including text, images, code, data interpretations, analyses, or references, must be disclosed at the time of manuscript submission.

Such disclosure allows the editorial team to assess the nature and extent of AI involvement and to determine whether its use is consistent with the journal's academic and ethical standards.

Generative AI tools must not be treated or cited as authoritative or primary scholarly sources. Where AI-generated text, images, code, analyses, or other material has been used, authors are responsible for independently verifying the resulting content and ensuring its originality, accuracy, relevance, and compliance with applicable ethical and scholarly standards.

Authors using generative AI are expected to comply with the following requirements:

Disclosure: Identify the AI model, platform, or tool used and explain how it contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. Where appropriate, this information should be provided in the Methods section, Acknowledgments, or another relevant disclosure section.
Verification: Independently verify and, where necessary, correct all AI-generated statements, facts, interpretations, analyses, quotations, references, statistical information, and other substantive content.
Originality: Review AI-generated material for potential inappropriate textual overlap or plagiarism, recognizing that generative AI systems may reproduce or closely resemble existing language from unidentified sources.
Accuracy and Hallucination Control: Ensure that the manuscript contains no fabricated, misleading, or hallucinated information, including inaccurate factual claims, invented laws or regulations, non-existent policy documents, fabricated government data, false citations, non-existent publications, or unsupported interpretations.
Data and Evidence Integrity: Authors must not use AI-generated or AI-modified data, statistics, evidence, quotations, policy documents, or research findings in a manner that misrepresents their actual source, provenance, or validity.
Authorship: AI systems, including ChatGPT and similar platforms, must not be listed as authors or co-authors because they cannot meet the requirements of scholarly authorship or assume responsibility for the integrity of a published work.

Failure to disclose substantive generative AI use, or submission of material that relies excessively on unverified AI-generated content, may result in requests for clarification or revision, rejection of the manuscript, or other appropriate editorial action at any stage of the editorial and peer-review process.

Guidance for Reviewers and Editors

The use of AI tools during editorial and peer-review processes requires particular caution because submitted manuscripts are confidential scholarly documents and may contain unpublished ideas, research findings, datasets, government or institutional information, personal information, copyrighted materials, or other sensitive content.

Assistive Use

Reviewers may use assistive AI tools solely to improve the grammar, clarity, readability, or language quality of review comments that they have independently prepared.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, substance, tone, professional quality, and integrity of all comments submitted to the journal.

Editors may use AI-assisted tools for limited administrative purposes, such as supporting the identification of potential reviewers, organizing editorial information, or improving non-substantive editorial communication, provided that manuscript confidentiality, personal data protection, editorial independence, and other applicable ethical requirements are preserved.

Prohibited Uses

Reviewers and editors must not use generative AI in ways that compromise confidentiality, independent academic judgment, or the integrity of the editorial process. The following activities are prohibited:

using AI tools to generate substantive peer-review reports;
using AI tools to summarize, evaluate, or analyze confidential unpublished manuscript content;
using AI tools to generate substantive editorial assessments, recommendations, or editorial decisions;
uploading complete or substantial portions of unpublished manuscripts, supplementary files, research data, reviewer reports, or other confidential editorial materials to external AI platforms where confidentiality, data retention, training use, or data reuse cannot be adequately controlled; and
relying on AI-generated output as a substitute for independent scholarly judgment by reviewers or editors.

If potential misuse of AI within the editorial or peer-review process is identified, the matter should be reported confidentially to the editorial team for appropriate investigation and action.

Undisclosed or Inappropriate Use of Generative AI

Undisclosed, misleading, or unethical use of generative AI may constitute a publication-integrity concern and may be investigated by Jurnal Kebijakan Publik dan Pembangunan Daerah.

Depending on the nature, extent, and severity of the issue, editorial action may include:

a request for clarification or disclosure;
a request for manuscript revision;
additional editorial or ethical review;
rejection of the manuscript; or
appropriate post-publication corrective action.

Where a published article is subsequently found to contain undisclosed generative AI content associated with fabricated, plagiarized, materially inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise unethical material, the journal may issue a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other appropriate post-publication notice in accordance with its publication ethics policies.

Accountability Statement

Human authors, reviewers, and editors remain responsible for the integrity, accuracy, reliability, confidentiality, and ethical standards of scholarly publishing.

Artificial intelligence cannot assume authorship, intellectual responsibility, accountability, or editorial authority. The use of AI must therefore remain transparent, proportionate, ethical, and consistent with accepted standards of scholarly communication and publication integrity.

Jurnal Kebijakan Publik dan Pembangunan Daerah reserves the right to update this policy in response to developments in artificial intelligence technology, scholarly publishing standards, and publication-ethics guidance.