Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

AL-ARKHABIIL: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat acknowledges that generative AI and AI-assisted tools are now part of academic work. This policy protects the integrity, confidentiality, and accountability of the publication process. It follows the COPE position statement on Authorship and AI tools and applies to every manuscript received from 1 October 2026 onward.

In this policy, "AI tools" means any system that generates, rewrites, summarises, translates, or evaluates text, images, data, or code. Examples include ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, DeepSeek, and paraphrasing or translation services built on large language models.

1. Authors: Disclosure Obligations

1.1 Authorship. An AI tool cannot be listed as an author or co-author, and it cannot be cited as a source of original ideas. Authorship requires accountability for the work, and only humans can carry it. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of every part of the manuscript, including any part produced with AI assistance.

1.2 Mandatory disclosure. Authors must disclose any use of AI tools in preparing the manuscript. This covers drafting or rewriting text, translating, summarising literature, analysing data, and producing figures, tables, or images. The disclosure appears in a section titled Declaration of AI Use, placed before the References. It names:

the tool and its version;
the purpose of use;
the sections affected;
a confirmation that the authors reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for it.

Tools that only correct spelling or grammar without generating or restructuring content need no disclosure. Reference managers such as Mendeley and Zotero need no disclosure either.

1.3 Prohibited uses. Authors must not use AI tools to:

fabricate or manipulate data, participant responses, field documentation, or activity results;
generate references or citations that the authors have not personally read and verified;
create or alter photographs presented as documentation of community service activities.

AI-generated illustrations are allowed only when they are clearly labelled as such in the caption.

1.4 AI as part of the programme. When an AI tool was itself part of the community service intervention (for example, as a learning medium), describe it in the Methods section. Such use is research content, not writing assistance.

1.5 Standard statements. Authors may adapt one of the following:

Declaration of AI Use: During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [tool name, version] to [purpose, e.g., improve the readability of the English abstract]. The authors reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this article.

Declaration of AI Use: The authors declare that no generative AI tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript.

2. Editorial Team: Limits and Disclosure

2.1 Decisions remain human. Editors must not use AI tools to evaluate the scientific merit of a manuscript, to make or recommend editorial decisions, or to draft decision letters on substantive grounds.

2.2 Confidentiality. Editors must not upload manuscripts, reviewer reports, or author correspondence, in whole or in part, to AI tools that store, reuse, or train on user input. Unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents under the journal's Publication Ethics policy.

2.3 Permitted technical use. Editors may use AI-assisted tools for limited technical tasks that do not involve judging scientific content. Examples:

similarity screening;
reference format checks;
metadata standardisation;
language correction of already accepted manuscripts during copyediting.

The editor records any such use in the submission's discussion log in OJS.

2.4 AI-detection results. Output from AI-detection software is never the sole basis for rejecting a manuscript. When the editor suspects undisclosed AI use, the editor asks the author for clarification before taking any decision.

3. Reviewers: Prohibition of AI Use in Peer Review

3.1 Prohibition. Reviewers must not use AI tools to assess a manuscript, summarise it, identify its weaknesses, or draft or rewrite review comments. The review must reflect the reviewer's own expert judgement.

3.2 Confidentiality. Reviewers must not upload, paste, or otherwise share any part of a manuscript under review with an AI application. This includes the title, abstract, figures, and data. Doing so breaches the confidentiality of double-blind peer review.

3.3 Declaration. When submitting a review in OJS, reviewers confirm that they did not use AI tools in preparing it.

3.4 Breach. A reviewer found to have used AI in breach of this policy will be removed from the reviewer database. The affected manuscript will be sent to a new reviewer.

4. Handling of Violations

Suspected violations are handled under the journal's Publication Ethics policy and the relevant COPE flowcharts. The response depends on the stage and severity: