Generative AI

1. Overview

This policy regulates the acceptable and prohibited use of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI), AI-assisted technologies, language-assistance tools, and other assistive technologies in manuscript preparation, peer review, editorial handling, and publication at the Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Matematika dan Sains (JPPMS).

JPPMS, with ISSN 2580-586X (online), is a scientific journal published by the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Negeri Surabaya. The journal publishes research articles concerning learning innovation, assessment and evaluation, learning media, misconceptions, curriculum and philosophy, and educational psychology in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology education.

AI may be used only as a supportive tool. It must not replace human scholarly contribution, critical thinking, authorship responsibility, peer-review judgment, ethical responsibility, editorial independence, or editorial decision-making.

The use of AI at JPPMS is guided by the following principles:

  • Transparency: AI use must be disclosed where required by this policy.
  • Human Accountability: Authors, Reviewers, Editors, and editorial staff remain fully responsible for their respective work, assessments, communications, and decisions.
  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts, Reviewer reports, Author responses, research data, supplementary materials, and other unpublished information must be protected.
  • Integrity: AI must not be used to fabricate, falsify, manipulate, obscure, or misrepresent scholarly content, data, images, citations, references, authorship, peer review, or editorial processes.
  • Privacy and Intellectual Property: AI use must comply with applicable privacy, consent, copyright, licensing, institutional, and data-protection requirements.
  • Editorial Independence: AI must not determine peer-review recommendations, ethical judgments, editorial decisions, or post-publication actions.

These principles apply to research in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology education, including studies involving learning innovation, assessment and evaluation, educational media, conceptual understanding, curriculum development, and educational psychology.

Authors and Editors must maintain appropriate transparency regarding the use of AI in accordance with their respective roles. Peer Reviewers must not use AI to perform substantive scholarly assessment, generate substantive peer-review comments or recommendations, or disclose confidential manuscript materials to unauthorized AI systems.

Any misuse of AI may be handled in accordance with the applicable publication ethics and research-integrity policies of JPPMS.

 

2. For Authors

2.1 Acceptable Use

Authors may use Gen AI, AI-assisted technologies, and other assistive technologies for legitimate research and manuscript-preparation support, including:

  • brainstorming and organization of ideas;
  • grammar, spelling, punctuation, language polishing, and readability improvement;
  • paraphrasing and translation;
  • formatting and non-substantive presentation;
  • literature or reference assistance;
  • coding or computational assistance;
  • data-related assistance;
  • visualization assistance; and
  • other appropriate research or manuscript-preparation support.

AI-assisted tools must not replace the Authors’ own scholarly contribution, analysis, interpretation, critical thinking, argumentation, results, discussion, or conclusions.

All AI-generated or AI-assisted outputs must be reviewed, verified, and edited by the Authors. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, ethical compliance, and final content of the manuscript.

In mathematics and natural sciences education, Authors must independently verify mathematical calculations, scientific explanations, statistical analyses, educational assessment instruments, and interpretations of research findings, regardless of whether AI-assisted tools have been used.

2.2 Disclosure Requirements

Authors must disclose the use of Gen AI, AI-assisted technologies, and relevant assistive technologies used during the research or preparation of the manuscript, in accordance with this policy and the journal's applicable submission requirements.

This includes, where applicable, tools used for language assistance, translation, paraphrasing, coding, reference assistance, data-related assistance, visualization, and other AI-assisted support.

The disclosure should be included in a dedicated section titled:

DECLARATION OF ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN THE WRITING PROCESS

Where AI or assistive technologies were used:

The authors declare that generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) and other AI-assisted tools were used prudently, not excessively, during the research and preparation of this manuscript. Specifically, [AI tool 1] was used for [function 1]; [AI tool 2] for [function 2]; and [AI tool n] for [function n]. All AI-generated or AI-assisted material was reviewed and edited for accuracy, completeness, and compliance with ethical and scholarly standards. The authors accept full responsibility for the final content of the manuscript.

Where no AI or assistive technologies were used:

The authors declare that no generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI), AI-assisted technologies, or other assistive technologies were used in the research or preparation of this manuscript.

Authors must identify the name of each tool and its actual function. The declaration may be published together with the article to promote transparency, subject to the journal's publication practices.

2.3 Authorship Attribution

Gen AI, AI-assisted technologies, and other technological tools cannot be listed as Authors or Co-Authors.

Authorship requires human scholarly contribution, accountability, approval of the final manuscript, and responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the work.

Authors must ensure that every listed Author meets the journal's authorship requirements. The use of AI does not justify granting authorship to a tool, omitting a qualifying human contributor, or misrepresenting individual contributions.

2.4 Use in Research Methods, Data Analysis, and Code

If AI is used as part of the research methodology, data analysis, data processing, coding, instrument development, intervention design, literature mapping, classification, predictive modelling, visualization, or other substantive research activities, its use must also be described in the Method section.

Where relevant, Authors should report:

  • the tool and version, where available;
  • purpose of use;
  • relevant workflow;
  • type of input and output;
  • extent of human verification; and
  • limitations relevant to validity, reliability, transparency, or reproducibility.

For research involving mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology education, Authors should explain how AI-assisted procedures were validated and how their potential limitations may affect the findings.

The journal may request relevant prompts, outputs, logs, code, original files, or other supporting documentation when necessary for verification.

2.5 Use in Figures, Images, and Graphical Materials

AI must not be used to fabricate, falsify, misleadingly enhance, obscure, or manipulate research evidence.

Where AI-generated or AI-assisted figures, images, graphical materials, or visualizations are scientifically and ethically appropriate, their use must be transparently disclosed and adequately verified by the Authors.

Authors must ensure that AI-assisted visual materials accurately represent the underlying data and do not distort experimental observations, mathematical representations, scientific illustrations, assessment results, or other research evidence.

The journal may request original files, prompts, outputs, or other supporting documentation where necessary to evaluate the integrity of AI-assisted visual materials.

2.6 Prohibited Use by Authors

Authors must not use AI to:

  1. replace their own substantive intellectual or scholarly contribution;
  2. fabricate, falsify, manipulate, or misrepresent research data, findings, analyses, results, or conclusions;
  3. generate or use false, inaccurate, irrelevant, unverifiable, non-existent, fabricated, or misleading citations or references;
  4. cite sources that have not been independently verified;
  5. conceal plagiarism, excessive similarity, duplicate publication, or inappropriate text reuse;
  6. manipulate citations, reference lists, images, figures, tables, or other scholarly evidence in a misleading manner;
  7. generate inaccurate authorship, ethical, competing-interest, funding, or Data Availability declarations;
  8. insert hidden prompts, invisible text, or machine-targeted instructions intended to manipulate screening, peer review, editorial handling, indexing, or evaluation; or
  9. misrepresent the role, extent, or purpose of AI use.

 

3. For Peer Reviewers

3.1 Prohibited Use of AI in Peer-Review Assessment

Peer Reviewers must conduct scholarly assessment independently based on their own expertise, critical evaluation, academic judgment, and ethical responsibility.

Reviewers must not use Gen AI or AI-assisted technologies to:

  1. analyze, evaluate, interpret, or assess the scholarly content of a submitted manuscript;
  2. determine its validity, originality, significance, quality, or suitability;
  3. generate or draft substantive peer-review comments, assessments, or recommendations;
  4. formulate recommendations concerning acceptance, revision, or rejection; or
  5. replace the Reviewer's own independent scholarly judgment.

Peer-review comments and recommendations must reflect the Reviewer's own independent scholarly assessment.

3.2 Confidentiality

Reviewers must not upload, enter, copy, transmit, or otherwise provide a submitted manuscript or any part thereof to public, unsecured, or unauthorized AI systems.

This includes manuscript text, abstracts, research data, figures, tables, supplementary files, Author responses, review forms, unpublished findings, and other confidential peer-review materials.

Reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of the review process and comply with the journal's applicable policies concerning unpublished research and intellectual property.

3.3 Reviewer Responsibility

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, independence, confidentiality, and integrity of their peer-review reports.

Any use of technology in connection with peer review must not compromise confidentiality, independent scholarly judgment, peer-review integrity, or the Reviewer's responsibility for the submitted review.

Violation of these requirements may be treated as a breach of peer-review confidentiality or publication ethics.

 

4. For Editors and Editorial Staff

4.1 Permitted Supportive Use

Editors and editorial staff may use Gen AI and AI-assisted technologies for supportive and non-decisional editorial purposes.

Such uses may include:

  • grammar, spelling, and language polishing of non-confidential editorial text;
  • improving the clarity and structure of editorial communications;
  • formatting and administrative assistance;
  • organization of editorial notes and workflows;
  • technical or administrative manuscript screening;
  • checking the presence of required manuscript sections or declarations;
  • metadata organization;
  • background literature support;
  • development of editorial templates, workflows, and checklists;
  • development, discussion, review, consistency checking, and refinement of journal policies, guidelines, manuscript templates, forms, and other editorial documents; and
  • other appropriate non-decisional editorial support.

AI-assisted editorial work remains subject to human review, verification, and final approval by the responsible Editor or journal management.

4.2 Use with Confidential Editorial Materials

Submitted manuscripts, Reviewer reports, Author responses, research data, supplementary files, confidential editorial notes, and other confidential manuscript-related materials must not be uploaded to public, unsecured, or unauthorized AI systems.

Where AI is used with confidential editorial materials, such use may occur only through an appropriately local, offline, private, secure, or journal-controlled system with adequate safeguards for confidentiality, privacy, data protection, access control, and intellectual property.

The use of such systems must comply with institutional requirements and the journal's applicable confidentiality obligations.

4.3 Prohibited Use by Editors

Editors and editorial staff must not use AI to:

  1. determine whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected;
  2. replace scholarly or ethical judgment;
  3. determine scientific validity or scholarly merit;
  4. replace the independent scholarly assessment of Peer Reviewers;
  5. make final judgments concerning misconduct or ethical violations without human assessment; or
  6. determine post-publication editorial actions.

All editorial decisions must be made by human Editors based on academic expertise, peer-review results, editorial assessment, ethical considerations, and applicable JPPMS policies.

4.4 Transparency, Disclosure, and Accountability by Editors

Editors and editorial staff should disclose substantive use of Gen AI or AI-assisted technologies in editorial work, in accordance with the nature and context of the activity and the journal's applicable policies.

Where relevant, such disclosure should identify the AI tool used and its general function or purpose. Routine or minor supportive uses, such as grammar checking, spelling correction, formatting assistance, or non-substantive language refinement, do not normally require separate disclosure.

As a general principle, JPPMS may use Gen AI and AI-assisted technologies to support non-decisional editorial activities, including policy development and refinement, preparation of guidelines and templates, editorial workflow development, administrative and technical support, language assistance, consistency checking, and editorial communications.

This general statement describes permitted supportive uses and does not establish that JPPMS currently uses any particular AI tool or service.

All AI-assisted editorial outputs remain subject to human review, verification, modification where necessary, and final approval. Gen AI and AI-assisted technologies must not replace scholarly assessment, peer-review judgment, ethical judgment, or editorial decision-making.

Editors and editorial staff remain fully responsible for confidentiality, editorial integrity, scholarly and ethical judgment, editorial communications, and all editorial decisions.

 

5. Confidentiality, Privacy, and Intellectual Property

All parties involved in the publication process must protect confidential and unpublished materials, including manuscripts, research data, Reviewer reports, Author responses, supplementary materials, and editorial communications.

Confidential materials must not be uploaded, copied, shared, analyzed, summarized, or otherwise processed through public, unsecured, or unauthorized AI systems.

The use of AI must comply with applicable:

  • copyright and licensing terms;
  • privacy and data-protection requirements;
  • participant consent;
  • institutional regulations;
  • Author rights; and
  • third-party intellectual property rights.

Where confidential materials are processed using an authorized private or journal-controlled system, appropriate confidentiality, privacy, security, access-control, and intellectual-property safeguards must remain in place.

Authors conducting research involving students, teachers, schools, laboratories, or other educational settings must also ensure that AI-assisted processing does not compromise the privacy of research participants or disclose identifiable personal information without appropriate authorization.

 

6. AI-Related Misconduct

The following actions may constitute AI-related publication misconduct:

  1. failure to disclose AI use where disclosure is required;
  2. misrepresentation of the role, extent, or purpose of AI use;
  3. fabrication, falsification, or manipulation of scholarly content using AI;
  4. use of fabricated, unverifiable, misleading, or AI-hallucinated citations or references;
  5. use of AI to conceal plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate text reuse, or unethical authorship;
  6. misleading AI-assisted manipulation of images, figures, tables, or scholarly evidence;
  7. use of hidden prompts, invisible text, or machine-targeted content intended to manipulate scholarly or editorial systems;
  8. use of AI by Reviewers in place of independent scholarly assessment;
  9. use of AI by Editors to make or replace editorial or ethical decisions;
  10. unauthorized disclosure or processing of confidential manuscript or peer-review materials through AI systems; or
  11. any other AI use that compromises authorship responsibility, research integrity, confidentiality, peer-review integrity, editorial independence, publication ethics, or the scholarly record.

 

7. Compliance and Accountability

Failure to comply with this policy may result in appropriate editorial action in accordance with the applicable publication ethics and research-integrity policies of JPPMS.

Depending on the nature, severity, and timing of the issue, JPPMS may:

  1. request clarification, revision, correction, or additional disclosure;
  2. request supporting documentation or records of AI use;
  3. reject a manuscript before or during peer review;
  4. suspend the editorial or publication process;
  5. decline or discontinue the involvement of a Reviewer;
  6. issue a Correction, Expression of Concern, Retraction, or other appropriate editorial notice;
  7. refer the matter to an institution, ethics committee, funder, or other relevant authority; or
  8. take other appropriate actions necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

Editorial action will be based on available evidence, the nature and severity of the issue, ethical considerations, and its potential impact on research integrity, confidentiality, peer-review integrity, editorial independence, or the scholarly record.

These provisions are intended to support the journal's assessment of manuscript originality, format, and scope while maintaining appropriate scholarly and ethical standards.

 

8. Relationship with Other JPPMS Policies

This policy forms part of the broader JPPMS publication ethics framework.

Any matter not specifically regulated in this policy should be handled in accordance with the journal's official submission guidelines and other applicable editorial policies, including:

  • Author Guidelines – requirements for manuscript preparation, submission, and relevant declarations;
  • Peer Review Process – procedures for evaluating manuscripts submitted to JPPMS;
  • Authorship and Contributorship Policy – requirements concerning authorship eligibility, individual contributions, and accountability;
  • Conflict of Interest and Competing Interests Policy – disclosure and management of interests that may influence research or editorial decisions; and
  • Research Integrity and Post-Publication Matters – procedures for addressing concerns about published research and the accuracy of the scholarly record.

Suspected AI-related misconduct may be handled through the journal's applicable procedures for research misconduct, complaints, appeals, corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, or other appropriate editorial actions.

 

9. Policy Review

JPPMS may periodically review and update this policy in response to developments in Gen AI and AI-assisted technologies, publication ethics standards, COPE recommendations, scholarly publishing practices, regulatory requirements, and applicable journal accreditation requirements.

Where a specific situation is not addressed by this policy, the Editor may exercise appropriate editorial judgment while considering available evidence, applicable journal policies, recognized publication ethics principles, institutional clarification, and the need to protect the scholarly record.