Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy

Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

Logos: Eurasian Journal of Philosophy recognizes that generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-based technologies are increasingly being used in academic writing, translation, language editing, data processing and analysis, literature searches, and other stages of scholarly communication. These technologies may assist researchers in improving the clarity, readability, and linguistic quality of manuscripts; however, their use requires strict adherence to the principles of academic integrity, transparency, accountability, confidentiality, source reliability, and human authorship.

For the purposes of this policy, generative AI includes large language models, chatbots, text and image generators, machine translation systems, software assistants, tools for data processing and reference checking and formatting, as well as other technologies capable of generating, modifying, summarizing, translating, classifying, or interpreting text, images, data, and other scholarly content. Such tools include, but are not limited to, ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, DeepSeek, DALL-E, Midjourney, Canva AI, Grammarly AI, and other comparable systems.

Generative AI tools may not be listed as authors or co-authors of a manuscript. Authorship entails responsibility for the accuracy, originality, scholarly integrity, argumentation, final content, and published outcome of a study. Because AI tools cannot assume responsibility for the content of a work, respond to questions concerning the research conducted, verify the reliability of sources, or approve the final version of a manuscript, they do not meet the criteria for authorship. Authors bear full responsibility for all parts of the manuscript, including any content prepared with the assistance of AI tools.

Authors may use generative AI only in a limited and responsible manner. Permitted uses include improving grammar, spelling, punctuation, syntax, readability, academic style, translation quality, and linguistic clarity. In all cases, AI must be used solely as an assistive tool and not as a substitute for the author’s independent scholarly work. Authors must carefully review, edit, and verify any text or output generated with the assistance of AI.

Generative AI must not be used as a substitute for philosophical research, conceptual analysis, critical interpretation of philosophical texts, scholarly argumentation, independent formulation of research problems, analysis of philosophical concepts, or the development of conclusions. Authors must not use AI to fabricate philosophical claims, generate false quotations, create fictitious interpretations, attribute nonexistent ideas or works to philosophers, produce false references, or present unverified information as scholarly evidence. In philosophical research, particular importance is attached to conceptual precision, consistency of argumentation, accuracy of interpretation, engagement with primary sources, and critical evaluation of scholarly literature. Any information obtained through AI must therefore be verified against genuine and reliable sources.

Authors are prohibited from using generative AI to create, modify, or distort scholarly materials in ways that may affect the reliability of a study or its argumentation. This applies to philosophical texts, quotations, manuscripts, diagrams, tables, images, research data, translations of primary sources, and other materials used as the basis for scholarly conclusions. AI must not be used to remove, add, conceal, or alter elements of materials in a way that distorts their content or evidentiary value. Basic technical adjustment of images or other materials is permitted only when it does not alter, conceal, or misrepresent the original content.

The use of generative AI to create fabricated references, false quotations, nonexistent DOIs, fictitious titles of works, inaccurate bibliographic descriptions, incorrect attribution of ideas, or misleading information constitutes a serious breach of publication ethics. All references, quotations, DOIs, page numbers, titles of works, and bibliographic records must be genuine, accurate, and verifiable. Authors are responsible for independently checking every source before submitting a manuscript. References suggested or generated by AI must not be included in an article unless their existence, accuracy, and relevance to the research have been independently verified.

If authors have used generative AI or AI-based technologies in preparing a manuscript, they must clearly and transparently disclose such use. The disclosure should specify the name of the tool or service, its version where applicable, the developer or provider, the purpose for which it was used, and the part of the work in which it was applied. Information concerning AI use must be provided both in the cover letter submitted with the manuscript and in the manuscript itself. Within the article, the disclosure should appear before the reference list in a separate section entitled “Declaration on the Use of Generative AI Tools.”

Recommended wording:

Declaration on the Use of Generative AI Tools

During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [name of AI tool/service, version where applicable, developer] for the purpose of [state the purpose: improving language, grammar, readability, translation quality, or academic style]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed, verified, and edited the content as necessary and assume(s) full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, academic integrity, and final content of the published article.

If AI tools were used solely for basic spelling or grammar checking or for technical reference formatting, and did not generate substantive scholarly text, philosophical argumentation, interpretations, sources, or conclusions, disclosure is generally not required. However, in cases of uncertainty, authors are encouraged to disclose the use of the relevant tool.

If AI was used substantively, including for research data processing, corpus or textual analysis, computational analysis of philosophical texts, formal-logical analysis, translation analysis, statistical processing, data visualization, image recognition, transcription, OCR correction, network analysis, digital humanities methods, or other research procedures, authors must describe such use in the “Materials and Methods,” “Research Methodology,” or another appropriate methodological section. The description must be sufficiently detailed to allow readers, reviewers, and editors to understand how the tool was used, what materials or data were processed, which version of the tool was employed, and how the authors verified the resulting output.

Authors must not upload confidential, restricted-access, copyrighted, unpublished, personal, or legally protected materials to generative AI tools unless they have the legal right and appropriate permission to do so. This is particularly important with respect to unpublished manuscripts, archival materials, personal data, private correspondence, field materials, interviews, images, translations, and materials obtained under restricted-access conditions.

The use of generative AI for plagiarism, paraphrasing without proper attribution, concealment of borrowed text, circumvention of originality-checking systems, or misrepresentation of authorship is strictly prohibited. The journal reserves the right to use originality-checking systems, reference verification tools, image analysis, tools for detecting undisclosed AI use, and other editorial technologies in the assessment of manuscripts.

Reviewers must not use generative AI tools to review, summarize, evaluate, translate, or prepare recommendations concerning manuscripts submitted to Logos: Eurasian Journal of Philosophy. Peer review is a confidential expert process requiring human scholarly judgment, critical thinking, philosophical and disciplinary competence, and personal responsibility. A manuscript under review is a confidential document and must not be uploaded, copied, summarized, or transmitted to any AI tool, chatbot, language model, or third-party platform. This prohibition also applies to tables, images, unpublished data, supplementary materials, and peer-review reports.

Editors must not use generative AI tools to make editorial decisions, assess the scholarly quality of manuscripts, analyze reviewers’ comments, or determine whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected. Editorial decisions require human responsibility, academic expertise, critical and ethical judgment, and accountability. All materials submitted to the journal, including manuscripts, reviews, authors’ responses, editorial correspondence, data, images, and supplementary files, must be treated as confidential.

The Editorial Board may request clarification from authors regarding the use of AI tools at any stage of submission, peer review, revision, production, or post-publication evaluation. If there is suspicion of undisclosed, misleading, or inappropriate use of AI, the journal may request additional information, original sources, texts used in the research, drafts, data, bibliographic materials, or other evidence demonstrating the authenticity and originality of the work. Failure to provide a satisfactory explanation may result in rejection of the manuscript, suspension of the peer-review process, publication of a correction or expression of concern, retraction, or other editorial action.

Violation of this policy is considered a breach of publication ethics. Serious violations include listing AI as an author; submitting AI-generated manuscripts without disclosure of AI use; fabrication of philosophical claims, quotations, bibliographic sources, or references; attribution of nonexistent ideas or texts to authors; use of AI to conceal plagiarism; manipulation of research materials; uploading confidential manuscripts to AI tools during peer review or editorial assessment; and misrepresentation of the role of AI in the research or preparation of the manuscript. Depending on the nature and severity of the violation, the journal may reject the manuscript, notify the authors’ institution, publish a correction or retraction, or take other measures in accordance with its publication ethics policy.

Logos: Eurasian Journal of Philosophy supports the responsible use of innovation in scholarly communication while maintaining that philosophical research must be grounded in independent critical thinking, coherent argumentation, conceptual precision, accurate interpretation of sources, transparent methodology, reliable citation, and human scholarly responsibility. Generative AI may assist authors with limited technical or linguistic tasks, but it must not replace philosophical analysis, independent argumentation, interpretation of philosophical texts, the author’s conceptual work, or the ethical responsibilities associated with academic publishing.