Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy for Authors and Reviewers

Policy on the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in Scholarly Publishing

The Journal of Pharmacovigilance and Drug Research (JPADR) recognizes the increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in research, scholarly writing, peer review, and publishing workflows.

The journal supports the responsible, transparent, and ethical use of AI while protecting scientific integrity, research reliability, editorial independence, confidentiality, and intellectual accountability.

This policy establishes expectations for the responsible use of AI by:

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Editors
  • Editorial Staff

JPADR follows evolving international guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).

1. Purpose of this Policy

This policy aims to:

  • Promote transparency in AI-assisted research and writing.
  • Prevent misuse of AI-generated content.
  • Protect confidentiality during peer review.
  • Maintain accountability for published work.
  • Preserve trust in scientific publishing.

While AI technologies can support scholarly communication, they cannot replace human scientific responsibility, ethical judgment, or editorial oversight.

2. Definition of Artificial Intelligence Tools

For the purposes of this policy, Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools include, but are not limited to:

  • Generative AI systems
  • Large Language Models (LLMs)
  • AI-assisted writing tools
  • AI image generation software
  • Automated editing tools
  • AI-assisted data analysis platforms

Examples include:

  • OpenAI products
  • Google AI systems
  • Microsoft AI-assisted tools
  • Other machine learning and automated content generation platforms

Mention of any commercial AI product does not imply endorsement by JPADR.

3. General Principles

Artificial Intelligence may be used as a supportive tool for:

  • Language improvement
  • Grammar correction
  • Readability enhancement
  • Formatting assistance
  • Limited technical support

However:

  • AI tools cannot be listed as authors.
  • AI systems cannot assume responsibility for scientific content.
  • Human authors remain fully accountable for all submitted work.

Every manuscript must demonstrate genuine human scientific oversight, interpretation, and accountability.

4. AI Policy for Authors

4.1 Permitted AI-Assisted Uses

Authors may use AI tools for limited assistance including:

  • Language editing
  • Grammar correction
  • Formatting support
  • Readability improvement
  • Reference organization assistance

Such use is acceptable only when:

  • Human oversight is maintained.
  • Scientific accuracy is independently verified.
  • AI use is disclosed where appropriate.

4.2 Mandatory Disclosure of AI Use

Authors must disclose significant AI-assisted use during manuscript preparation.

The disclosure should include:

  • Name of the AI tool.
  • Purpose of its use.
  • Extent of AI assistance.

Example Disclosure

The authors used an AI-assisted language tool for grammar and language improvement. All scientific content, interpretation, analysis, and conclusions were independently reviewed and verified by the authors.

Disclosure may appear:

  • In the Acknowledgements section.
  • Within the Methods section where appropriate.
  • During manuscript submission.

4.3 Author Accountability

Regardless of AI assistance, authors remain fully responsible for:

  • Scientific accuracy.
  • Validity of conclusions.
  • Originality of the manuscript.
  • Citation accuracy.
  • Ethical compliance.
  • Data integrity.

Authors should carefully verify AI-generated content for:

  • Hallucinated references.
  • Incorrect scientific information.
  • Misleading interpretations.
  • Fabricated data.
  • Bias or inappropriate language.

5. Prohibited Uses of AI by Authors

Authors must not use AI tools to:

  • Fabricate research data.
  • Generate false research findings.
  • Create fictitious citations.
  • Produce misleading scientific conclusions.
  • Manipulate scientific images deceptively.
  • Create fake patient information.
  • Circumvent the peer-review process.
  • Misrepresent authorship contributions.

Such practices constitute serious research misconduct and may result in editorial rejection, investigation, retraction, or notification of the relevant institutions.

6. AI-Generated Images and Figures

AI-generated or AI-assisted images, figures, illustrations, and graphical content must comply with internationally accepted standards of research integrity and ethical publishing.

Authors should not use AI technologies to:

  • Create fabricated scientific images.
  • Generate deceptive microscopy or radiology images.
  • Manipulate experimental figures in misleading ways.
  • Alter research data through AI image generation.
  • Create synthetic figures that misrepresent actual research findings.

Where AI-assisted image enhancement or generation is used for legitimate purposes, authors should disclose:

  • Name of the AI tool.
  • Purpose of the AI assistance.
  • Nature of the modifications.
  • Extent of AI involvement.

The Editorial Office may request original image files or supporting materials to verify authenticity.

7. AI Tools Cannot Be Authors

Artificial Intelligence systems, chatbots, and automated software do not satisfy international authorship criteria and therefore:

  • Cannot be listed as authors.
  • Cannot approve manuscripts.
  • Cannot accept responsibility for scientific work.
  • Cannot disclose conflicts of interest.
  • Cannot hold copyright.

Only human contributors who meet accepted authorship criteria may be listed as authors of manuscripts submitted to JPADR.

8. Data Privacy and Confidentiality

Authors should exercise caution when using public AI platforms and must not upload confidential or sensitive information without appropriate safeguards.

Examples include:

  • Patient-identifiable information.
  • Confidential clinical datasets.
  • Unpublished research data.
  • Institutional confidential information.
  • Commercially sensitive or proprietary data.

Authors remain fully responsible for protecting privacy, confidentiality, and compliance with applicable ethical and legal requirements.

9. AI Policy for Reviewers

9.1 Reviewer Confidentiality

Peer review is a confidential process. Reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of all manuscripts received for review.

Reviewers should not upload any part of a manuscript to public or unauthorized AI systems, including:

  • Manuscripts.
  • Figures.
  • Tables.
  • Supplementary files.
  • Reviewer comments.
  • Editorial correspondence.

Uploading confidential manuscripts to external AI systems may constitute:

  • Breach of confidentiality.
  • Research misconduct.
  • Unauthorized disclosure of intellectual property.

9.2 Limited AI Assistance for Reviewers

Reviewers may use AI only for limited editorial assistance such as:

  • Grammar improvement.
  • Language editing.
  • Organizing reviewer comments.

Such use is acceptable only if:

  • Confidentiality is fully preserved.
  • Scientific judgement remains entirely human.
  • AI assistance does not influence the reviewer’s independent assessment.

9.3 Reviewer Accountability

Reviewers remain fully responsible for:

  • Independent scientific evaluation.
  • Objective assessment.
  • Constructive reviewer comments.
  • Professional ethical judgement.

AI tools must never replace:

  • Critical scientific analysis.
  • Subject expertise.
  • Ethical evaluation.
  • Independent peer-review judgement.

10. AI Policy for Editors and Editorial Staff

Editors and Editorial Staff may use AI tools responsibly to assist with administrative or language-related tasks.

However, editors should not:

  • Upload confidential manuscripts to unauthorized AI systems.
  • Delegate editorial decisions entirely to AI.
  • Accept AI-generated recommendations without human evaluation.
  • Use AI in ways that compromise editorial independence.

Editorial decisions remain the sole responsibility of qualified human editors.

Editors are expected to exercise independent judgement in accordance with the journal's editorial policies and ethical standards.

11. AI Detection and Editorial Review

To protect research integrity, JPADR may evaluate manuscripts where inappropriate AI use is suspected.

The journal may:

  • Assess suspected AI-generated content.
  • Request clarification regarding AI use.
  • Request original datasets or supporting documentation.
  • Use AI-detection or research integrity assessment tools where appropriate.

Failure to disclose significant AI assistance or inappropriate use of AI may result in:

  • Requests for manuscript revision.
  • Additional editorial review.
  • Manuscript rejection.
  • Ethics investigation.
  • Retraction after publication where appropriate.

12. AI and Research Integrity

JPADR recognizes that responsible use of Artificial Intelligence should enhance, rather than compromise, the integrity of scientific research and scholarly communication.

The use of AI technologies should support:

  • Transparency in research reporting.
  • Scientific accuracy.
  • Ethical scholarly publishing.
  • Responsible authorship.
  • Human accountability.

AI technologies must not compromise:

  • Research integrity.
  • Scientific reproducibility.
  • Editorial independence.
  • Confidentiality during peer review.
  • Public trust in scientific publishing.

13. Ethical Concerns Related to AI Use

The Editorial Office may investigate concerns involving inappropriate or undisclosed use of Artificial Intelligence.

Examples include:

  • Fabricated references.
  • Hallucinated scientific information.
  • Undisclosed AI-generated text.
  • Synthetic or manipulated scientific images.
  • Automated manuscript generation without appropriate disclosure.
  • AI-assisted plagiarism.
  • Data fabrication or falsification.
  • Misrepresentation of authorship contributions.

Where concerns arise, the journal may request:

  • Clarification from the authors.
  • Original datasets.
  • Original image files.
  • Supporting documentation.
  • Revision of the manuscript.

If concerns remain unresolved, the journal may take one or more of the following actions:

  • Reject the manuscript.
  • Initiate an editorial ethics investigation.
  • Notify relevant institutions where appropriate.
  • Publish corrections.
  • Retract published articles.

Investigations involving AI-related concerns will be conducted in accordance with the journal's:

  • Publication Ethics Policy.
  • Research Integrity Policy.
  • Misconduct Investigation Procedures.
  • Plagiarism Policy.

14. Policy Updates and Technological Evolution

Artificial Intelligence technologies continue to evolve rapidly.

JPADR will periodically review and revise this policy to reflect:

  • Developments in AI technologies.
  • International publishing standards.
  • Recommendations from professional publishing organizations.
  • Regulatory developments.
  • Advances in research integrity practices.

Policy revisions will normally apply prospectively to future manuscript submissions unless otherwise stated.

15. Commitment to Responsible AI Use

JPADR supports the responsible, transparent, and ethical use of Artificial Intelligence in scholarly publishing while maintaining the essential role of human expertise and accountability.

The journal remains committed to:

  • Human accountability.
  • Scientific integrity.
  • Editorial independence.
  • Transparent reporting of AI use.
  • Confidential peer review.
  • Ethical scholarly communication.
  • Responsible innovation in publishing.

Artificial Intelligence can assist researchers, reviewers, and editors in appropriate circumstances; however, it cannot replace human scientific judgement, ethical responsibility, or editorial decision-making.

JPADR will continue to encourage responsible innovation while ensuring that the highest standards of research integrity and publication ethics are maintained.

References

  1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Guidance on Artificial Intelligence and Authorship.
  2. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
  3. World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Recommendations on Generative Artificial Intelligence in Scholarly Publishing.
  4. Council of Science Editors (CSE). Best Practices for Artificial Intelligence in Scholarly Communication.

Policy Review

This policy will be reviewed periodically by the Editorial Board to ensure continued alignment with international publishing standards, technological developments, and evolving recommendations concerning the ethical use of Artificial Intelligence in scholarly publishing.

The most recent version of this policy will always be available on the official JPADR website.