GENERATIVE AI POLICIES

Generative AI Policy

Policy Statement

Insight on Educational Mathematics (IEM) recognizes that Generative Artificial Intelligence (Generative AI) and AI-assisted technologies are increasingly being used in academic research and scholarly writing. These technologies may assist authors in improving language quality, organizing content, synthesizing information, and enhancing the efficiency of manuscript preparation.

However, AI tools cannot replace human intellectual contributions, critical thinking, scholarly judgment, ethical responsibility, or accountability. Therefore, the use of AI must always remain under meaningful human oversight.

Authors, reviewers, and editors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and ethical standards of all scholarly work submitted to or published in IEM.

This policy is informed by recommendations from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), international publishing standards, and evolving best practices regarding the responsible use of artificial intelligence in scholarly communication.

For Authors

Use of Generative AI in Manuscript Preparation

Authors may use Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies to support the preparation of manuscripts, including:

  • Improving grammar, spelling, and language clarity;

  • Enhancing readability and organization;

  • Summarizing literature;

  • Brainstorming ideas;

  • Generating outlines or structures;

  • Assisting with coding or data analysis explanations.

However, AI tools must not replace the authors’ own intellectual contribution.

Authors are fully responsible for:

  • Verifying the accuracy of all AI-generated content;

  • Checking references and citations generated by AI;

  • Identifying and correcting hallucinations, fabricated references, or misleading information;

  • Ensuring that interpretations, conclusions, and arguments represent the authors' own scholarly work;

  • Maintaining research integrity and academic honesty.

Mandatory Disclosure of AI Use

Authors must disclose any substantial use of Generative AI during manuscript preparation.

A separate section entitled "AI Declaration" should be included before the References section.

Example Statement

AI Declaration

The authors used ChatGPT (OpenAI) to assist with language editing and manuscript organization. All generated content was reviewed, verified, and revised by the authors. The authors take full responsibility for the final content of the manuscript.

Basic grammar and spelling checks using standard software do not require disclosure.

AI Use in Research Methods

If AI tools are part of the research design, methodology, data analysis, learning intervention, or educational technology being studied, authors must provide a detailed description in the Methods section, including:

  • Name of the AI system;

  • Version of the software;

  • Purpose of use;

  • Procedures employed;

  • Human oversight mechanisms.

The description must be sufficiently detailed to allow replication.

Authorship

Generative AI tools cannot be listed as:

  • Author;

  • Co-author;

  • Corresponding author.

AI systems cannot assume responsibility for scholarly work and therefore do not meet authorship criteria.

Only human contributors who satisfy the journal's authorship requirements may be listed as authors.

AI-Generated Figures, Images, and Artwork

IEM does not permit the use of Generative AI to create, manipulate, or alter figures, images, graphs, or visual materials that serve as research evidence.

Examples include:

  • AI-generated participant images;

  • AI-modified classroom photographs;

  • AI-created research data visualizations that misrepresent original data.

Acceptable image adjustments include:

  • Brightness correction;

  • Contrast adjustment;

  • Resolution enhancement;

provided that no scientific information is altered.

If AI-generated visuals are essential to the research itself, their use must be clearly described and justified in the manuscript.

Data Privacy and Confidentiality

Authors must ensure that confidential information is not uploaded to AI systems without proper authorization.

This includes:

  • Participant data;

  • Student records;

  • School documents;

  • Unpublished manuscripts;

  • Confidential research materials.

Authors are responsible for complying with institutional, legal, and ethical requirements regarding data protection.

For Reviewers

Use of AI During Peer Review

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, figures, tables, supplementary files, or review reports into public AI systems.

Examples include:

  • ChatGPT;

  • Gemini;

  • Claude;

  • Copilot;

  • Other third-party AI services.

Such actions may compromise:

  • Author confidentiality;

  • Intellectual property rights;

  • Data privacy obligations.

Human Responsibility

Peer review requires independent scholarly judgment.

Generative AI must not be used to evaluate:

  • Scientific quality;

  • Methodological rigor;

  • Originality;

  • Publication suitability.

Reviewers remain solely responsible for the content of their review reports.

For Editors

Use of AI in Editorial Decisions

Editors must not rely on Generative AI to make editorial decisions regarding:

  • Acceptance;

  • Revision;

  • Rejection;

  • Ethical investigations.

Editorial decisions require human judgment and academic expertise.

Confidentiality

Editors must not upload manuscripts, reviewer reports, decision letters, or confidential communications into publicly accessible AI platforms.

Editors are responsible for protecting the confidentiality of all materials handled during the editorial process.

Use of AI by the Journal

IEM may use AI-assisted technologies for limited administrative purposes, including:

  • Technical screening;

  • Similarity checking;

  • Language assessment;

  • Metadata generation;

  • Reviewer recommendation support;

  • Workflow management.

Such tools do not replace human editorial judgment.

Final editorial decisions are always made by qualified editors.

Violations of the AI Policy

Failure to comply with this policy may result in:

  • Requests for clarification;

  • Manuscript revision;

  • Rejection prior to publication;

  • Retraction after publication in cases of serious misconduct.

Cases involving undisclosed or inappropriate use of AI will be evaluated according to the journal's Publication Ethics Policy and COPE guidelines.

Commitment to Responsible AI Use

Insight on Educational Mathematics supports the responsible, transparent, and ethical use of artificial intelligence in research and scholarly communication. The journal encourages innovation while maintaining the principles of academic integrity, human accountability, transparency, fairness, and scientific rigor.