AI POLICIES
AI Guidelines for Authors
We recognise the value of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies (‘AI tools’) in enhancing research efficiency and improving the accessibility of texts. Authors may use AI tools responsibly and under human supervision to support their work as described below. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality and integrity of all submitted content.
Permitted use of AI:
- Gathering ideas or drafts
- Searching or summarising relevant literature
- Proofreading or editing one’s own texts
- Translating one’s own texts
Prohibited use of AI:
- Using AI as a substitute for human judgement, critical evaluation or expert knowledge
- Creating entire sections of text without human review or substantial input
- Uploading confidential, unpublished or third-party content into AI tools
Guidelines for Reviewers
We recognise the potential of generative AI and AI-powered technologies (‘AI tools’) to assist reviewers in the efficient evaluation of submissions. Reviewers may use AI tools responsibly and under strict supervision, as defined below. They must ensure that all AI outputs are checked for accuracy, impartiality and confidentiality. Reviewers bear full responsibility for the content and tone of their reviews.
Permitted use of AI:
- To better understand complex concepts or technologies
- To find or summarise relevant research literature
- To proofread or edit their own review texts
- Adjusting the tone for clarity or professionalism
Prohibited use of AI:
- Using AI as a substitute for human judgement, critical evaluation or expert knowledge
- Inputting original material from submitted contributions (e.g. authors’ unpublished works) into AI tools
- Relying on AI-generated content without thorough verification of accuracy and impartiality
- Disclosure of confidential details regarding submitted contributions to AI tools or third parties
REVIEW POLICIES
We ask reviewers to review only manuscripts that fall within their own field of expertise and to disclose any conflicts of interest with the authors to the editors (where such information can be deduced from the anonymised submission).
Conflicts of interest include, amongst other things: close professional relationships, family ties, romantic relationships, collaboration on the same research project, or other current close collaborations.
We also ask that you respond to invitations as promptly as possible and submit your completed reviews within the specified timeframe. If reviewers are unable to complete their review by the deadline, they are expected to inform the editors in good time so that this can be taken into account.
Furthermore, we ask reviewers to provide authors with constructive feedback that includes specific suggestions for improvement. Naturally, this feedback must not be influenced by the authors’ nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or financial interests. Feedback should always be phrased respectfully and must not contain hostile or provocative language. We therefore expect reviewers to refrain from personal attacks, defamation, and sexualised, racist or otherwise offensive language, and not to make disparaging remarks. If reviewers disregard these fundamental principles, the editors reserve the right to request a revision of the feedback or, depending on the severity of the breach, to reject the review entirely.