AI Policy

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Usage Policy

The Artificial Intelligence (AI) Usage Policy of Jurnal PIKMA: Publikasi Ilmu Komunikasi Media dan Cinema is adapted from Elsevier’s Generative AI Policies for Journals. This policy establishes the principles and requirements governing the responsible, transparent, and ethical use of generative artificial intelligence and AI-assisted technologies in scholarly publishing. It applies to authors, peer reviewers, editors, and other parties involved in the journal’s publication process.

The policy aims to ensure that AI technologies are used appropriately without compromising research integrity, academic originality, confidentiality, intellectual property rights, or human accountability. AI tools may support scholarly activities; however, they must not replace human expertise, independent judgement, or responsibility for the quality and validity of published research.

1. Guidelines for Authors

1.1. Human Oversight and Academic Responsibility

Authors may use AI tools to support manuscript preparation and other appropriate scholarly activities. Nevertheless, the use of such technologies must remain under meaningful human supervision and must not replace the authors’ intellectual contribution, critical thinking, or independent evaluation.

Authors bear full responsibility for the content of their submitted and published manuscripts, regardless of whether AI tools have been used during preparation. This responsibility includes verifying the accuracy, completeness, relevance, originality, and reliability of all statements, arguments, interpretations, research findings, and references.

Authors must carefully review AI-generated or AI-assisted outputs to identify factual inaccuracies, fabricated information, misleading interpretations, potential biases, and inappropriate textual similarities. Any content incorporated into a manuscript must be supported by appropriate evidence and meet the journal’s academic and ethical standards.

1.2. Authorship and Attribution

Generative AI systems and AI-assisted technologies cannot be listed as authors or co-authors of manuscripts submitted to Jurnal PIKMA. Authorship entails intellectual contribution, accountability, and the capacity to assume responsibility for the integrity of scholarly work, obligations that cannot be assigned to AI systems.

All individuals listed as authors must satisfy the journal’s authorship criteria and be able to take responsibility for their contributions. Authors must also ensure that the use of AI does not misrepresent the origin of ideas, conceal the contributions of other researchers, or compromise the originality of the manuscript.

AI tools must not be cited as authors or presented as independent scholarly authorities. Any sources, references, or factual claims suggested by AI must be independently verified against the original publications or other reliable sources before inclusion in the manuscript.

1.3. Permitted and Prohibited Uses of AI

AI tools may be used for limited supporting purposes that improve the efficiency and clarity of scholarly communication, provided that authors retain intellectual control over the research and its presentation.

Permitted uses include:

• Summarizing relevant scholarly literature to support preliminary understanding of a research topic, provided that the original sources are consulted and accurately represented.
• Assisting with the organization, structure, and logical flow of manuscripts.
• Improving the grammar, spelling, sentence structure, clarity, readability, and academic language of text originally prepared by the authors.
• Supporting the identification of relevant research questions, conceptual connections, or potential directions for further investigation, provided that the authors independently evaluate and develop these ideas.
• Assisting with non-substantive language editing and other appropriate tasks that do not compromise research integrity or authorship responsibilities.

Prohibited uses include:

• Generating substantive portions of a manuscript without meaningful intellectual contribution, critical evaluation, and verification by the authors.
• Fabricating, falsifying, manipulating, or misrepresenting research data, findings, evidence, or analytical results.
• Creating fictitious references, misrepresenting existing publications, or citing sources that have not been verified.
• Presenting AI-generated ideas, interpretations, or content as independently established scholarly contributions without appropriate evaluation and attribution.
• Using AI in ways that constitute plagiarism, academic misconduct, or misrepresentation of the research process.
• Relying exclusively on AI-generated outputs as evidence for scholarly claims without consulting and evaluating relevant primary or authoritative sources.

The acceptability of AI use depends on its purpose, the extent of its contribution, and the authors’ ability to demonstrate academic responsibility for the final manuscript.

1.4. Use of AI in Figures, Images, and Visual Materials

The use of AI in creating or processing figures, images, illustrations, and other visual materials must be consistent with the principles of research integrity, transparency, and reproducibility.

1. Explanatory illustrations

AI tools may be used to assist in creating explanatory materials, including conceptual diagrams, flowcharts, decision trees, timelines, and research workflow illustrations. Such materials must accurately represent the concepts or processes discussed in the manuscript. Authors must disclose the use of AI in the relevant figure caption and in the general AI declaration.

1. Data visualizations

AI-assisted tools may be used to produce data visualizations when the resulting figures are directly derived from actual research datasets and generated through reproducible analytical, computational, or statistical procedures. The Methods section must provide sufficient information about the relevant data, analytical procedures, and tools to enable readers to understand how the visualizations were produced.

AI must not be used to introduce unsupported patterns, remove inconvenient observations, alter findings, or otherwise misrepresent the underlying data.

1. Primary research images

Any permitted image processing must not distort, conceal, or misrepresent the original evidence and must comply with applicable disciplinary standards.

1. Graphical abstracts

General-purpose generative AI image tools must not be used to create graphical abstracts for submission to the journal. Authors are encouraged to use dedicated scientific illustration tools or other appropriate methods that support accurate and transparent representation of the study’s objectives, methods, and findings.

Authors remain responsible for ensuring that all visual materials are accurate, relevant, appropriately attributed, and compliant with applicable copyright and publication requirements.

1.5. Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies

Authors who use generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in preparing their manuscripts must provide a separate section entitled “Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies” at the end of the manuscript, immediately before the References.

The declaration must identify the AI tool or service used and explain its purpose in the manuscript preparation process. Authors must ensure that the statement accurately reflects the nature and extent of AI assistance provided.

The declaration requirement does not apply to routine functions such as basic spelling, grammar, and punctuation checks, standard reference management functions, or accessibility features provided through disability-related assistive technologies.

When AI tools are used as part of the research design or methodology, including data analysis, computational procedures, or code development, their use must be documented in sufficient detail in the Methods section. The description should identify the relevant tools and explain their role in the research process, including the procedures used to verify the resulting outputs.

Required declaration for authors

Authors who have used AI tools must include the following statement, adapted to reflect their actual use:

“Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Manuscript Preparation Process: During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [name of AI tool or service] for [specific purpose of use]. Following the use of this tool or service, the author(s) carefully reviewed, evaluated, and revised the generated content as necessary and take full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and content of the published article.”

Authors who have not used generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in manuscript preparation are not required to provide this declaration unless otherwise requested by the journal.

1.6. Data Privacy, Confidentiality, and Intellectual Property

Authors must exercise caution when using AI tools to process unpublished research, manuscripts, interview transcripts, personal information, confidential documents, or other materials subject to privacy or intellectual property restrictions.

Before using an AI service, authors must review its terms of service, privacy policy, and data-handling practices to determine whether submitted information may be stored, shared with third parties, or used for model training.

Authors must not disclose confidential, sensitive, or restricted information through AI systems without appropriate authorization and safeguards. They are responsible for ensuring that AI-assisted activities comply with relevant ethical requirements, research agreements, copyright provisions, data protection obligations, and institutional policies.

The use of AI must not compromise the confidentiality of research participants, the rights of other authors, or the ownership and legitimate use of research materials.

2. Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

2.1. Confidentiality of Submitted Manuscripts

Manuscripts submitted to Jurnal PIKMA are confidential documents containing unpublished scholarly work. Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of all manuscript materials and information obtained through the peer-review process.

Reviewers must not upload, submit, or otherwise disclose a manuscript, any portion of its contents, or associated confidential review materials to external AI tools. Such disclosure may compromise author confidentiality, intellectual property rights, research privacy, and the integrity of the peer-review process.

This restriction applies to manuscript text, figures, tables, supplementary files, research data, reviewer comments, and other materials that have not been made publicly available.

2.2. Independent Evaluation and Reviewer Accountability

Peer reviewers are responsible for conducting independent, objective, and constructive assessments of submitted manuscripts. AI tools must not replace reviewers’ scholarly expertise, critical reasoning, or professional judgement when evaluating a manuscript’s originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, analytical quality, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

Reviewers must independently assess the validity of research claims, the appropriateness of methods, the reliability of interpretations, and the adequacy of supporting evidence. They must also critically evaluate any AI-assisted suggestions before incorporating them into their reports.

Reviewers remain fully accountable for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and academic quality of their review reports, including any content prepared with AI assistance.

2.3. Permitted Use of AI in Peer Review

AI tools may be used for limited supporting purposes, provided that their use does not compromise manuscript confidentiality or the independence of the reviewer’s assessment.

Permitted uses may include improving the grammar, clarity, readability, and organization of review reports, as well as conducting general background literature searches that do not involve disclosing confidential manuscript information.

Reviewers must not submit manuscript content or confidential review materials to AI systems, even when the intended purpose is to summarize the manuscript, assess its quality, identify methodological weaknesses, or generate recommendations.

Any AI-assisted output must be carefully evaluated before use. Reviewers must ensure that their comments are evidence-based, relevant to the manuscript, constructive, and consistent with the journal’s peer-review standards.

2.4. Disclosure of AI Use by Reviewers

Reviewers must disclose the use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in preparing their review reports. The disclosure must be included in the comments to the authors and must identify the tool used and the purpose for which it was employed.

Routine spelling and grammar checks do not require disclosure. However, the use of AI for substantive language revision, structuring review comments, or other supporting activities beyond basic proofreading must be disclosed.

The declaration does not transfer responsibility to the AI system. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content and conclusions of their assessments.

Required declaration for reviewers

“Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Preparation of the Review Report: During the preparation of this review report, I used [name of AI tool or service] for [specific purpose of use]. I subsequently reviewed, evaluated, and revised the output as necessary and take full responsibility for the accuracy, fairness, and scholarly integrity of my assessment and feedback on the manuscript.”

3. Guidelines for Editors

3.1. Confidentiality and Protection of Manuscript Materials

Editors must maintain the confidentiality of all manuscripts, supplementary materials, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and other information obtained through the editorial process.

Editors must not upload submitted manuscripts or any part of their contents to external AI tools. This restriction is intended to protect unpublished research, authors’ intellectual property, confidential information, and the privacy of individuals involved in the research.

Any AI-assisted editorial activity must be conducted in a manner that complies with the journal’s confidentiality requirements and applicable data protection standards.

3.2. Editorial Independence and Decision-Making

AI tools may support editorial administration but must not replace the independent judgement, critical assessment, or decision-making authority of editors.

Editors are responsible for evaluating the suitability of manuscripts for publication, considering reviewer recommendations, assessing research integrity concerns, and making decisions in accordance with the journal’s editorial policies and publication standards.

Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit, methodological quality, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, and the evidence available. AI-generated recommendations must not be treated as authoritative or used as the sole basis for accepting, rejecting, or requesting revisions to a manuscript.

Editors remain fully accountable for editorial decisions, decision letters, and the fairness and integrity of the publication process.

3.3. Permitted Use of AI in Editorial Activities

Editors may use AI tools for limited administrative and language-related tasks that do not require disclosure of confidential manuscript content.

Appropriate uses may include refining the language and clarity of editorial correspondence, improving the organization of decision letters, and conducting general background literature searches using publicly available information.

Editors must independently verify AI-generated outputs and ensure that their use does not introduce inaccuracies, bias, inappropriate recommendations, or inconsistencies with the journal’s editorial policies.

AI tools must not be used to evaluate confidential manuscript content through unauthorized external systems or to delegate editorial judgements that require professional expertise and independent assessment.

3.4. AI Integration in Editorial Workflows

The journal may implement internal AI-assisted technologies to support administrative efficiency and strengthen publication quality. Potential applications include preliminary technical compliance checks, assessments of submission completeness, research integrity screening, and assistance in identifying reviewers whose expertise is relevant to a manuscript.

Such applications must be implemented with appropriate safeguards for confidentiality, data protection, accuracy, and impartiality. AI-generated flags, recommendations, or screening results must be treated as preliminary information requiring human assessment rather than as definitive evidence of compliance or misconduct.

The use of AI in editorial workflows must not undermine the independence of editors, the fairness of peer review, or the rights of authors. Final editorial judgements and publication decisions must remain under human control and responsibility.

4. Compliance and Implementation

All authors, reviewers, and editors involved in the publication process are expected to comply with this policy. The journal reserves the right to request clarification regarding the use of AI when necessary to assess compliance with its publication standards.

Failure to disclose relevant AI use, unauthorized disclosure of confidential materials, fabrication of research content, or other inappropriate uses of AI may be addressed in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policies and applicable research integrity guidelines.

Where concerns arise, the journal will assess the circumstances, consider the available evidence, and determine appropriate actions in accordance with established editorial procedures. Any response will be proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the concern.

This policy is intended to support the responsible adoption of AI technologies while preserving the principles of academic integrity, transparency, confidentiality, originality, and human accountability. Jurnal PIKMA: Publikasi Ilmu Komunikasi Media dan Cinema remains committed to ensuring that AI serves as a supporting resource for scholarly communication rather than a substitute for independent research, critical evaluation, and ethical editorial practice.