Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy
The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning (J-HyTEL) permits responsible and transparent use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies only when human authorship, verification, confidentiality, reproducibility, intellectual property, and accountability are fully protected.
Human Accountability, Transparent Assistance
Generative AI may support selected scholarly tasks, but it cannot assume authorship, exercise accountable scholarly judgement, approve a manuscript, hold copyright, declare a competing interest, or accept responsibility for errors or misconduct. Human participants in the publishing process remain responsible for every decision and every submitted or published output.
This policy applies to text, translations, code, data processing, analysis, tables, figures, images, audio, video, graphical abstracts, supplementary files, peer-review materials, editorial correspondence, and publication-production activities.
Human authors, reviewers, and editors remain responsible for all work and decisions.
Material AI use must be disclosed clearly, accurately, and in the required location.
AI-assisted output must be critically checked against reliable evidence and original sources.
Unpublished and protected material must not be exposed to unauthorised external systems.
Requirements for Authors, Reviewers & Editors
Open each section for the complete requirements. The same provisions should not be rewritten independently on derivative journal pages.
01 Scope and Definitions Systems, activities, persons, and materials covered by the policy
This policy applies to authors, contributors, reviewers, editors, Editorial Board members, journal staff, and authorised third-party service providers. It applies whether the system is public, commercial, institutionally licensed, integrated into another application, or locally hosted.
A system that generates or substantially transforms text, images, audio, video, code, data, or other content in response to prompts, instructions, or input data.
A tool that uses AI to generate, rewrite, translate, summarise, classify, analyse, recommend, predict, or materially transform scholarly content or research material.
Content that materially contributes to the research question, theory, methods, analysis, results, interpretation, argument, discussion, or conclusion.
Conventional spelling, formatting, calculation, and reference-management functions that do not generate or substantially transform scholarly content.
Routine non-generative tools do not need to be declared individually. A tool that generates, rewrites, translates, summarises, analyses, or materially modifies content is governed by this policy.
03 Permitted and Prohibited Uses by Authors Allowed assistance, human oversight, and unacceptable substitution
Language improvement, translation of author-developed text, accessibility support, preliminary organisation, code development or debugging, and research uses that are transparently reported and methodologically validated.
Undisclosed generation of substantive scholarly content; fabrication of data, participants, quotations, results, approvals, references, or evidence; concealment of plagiarism; false authorship; impersonation; or use that circumvents editorial and research-integrity controls.
Authors must critically review, verify, and revise all AI-assisted output. Every claim, quotation, reference, calculation, translation, code segment, analytical output, and interpretation must be checked by a human author against appropriate evidence or original sources.
AI must not replace the authors' original intellectual contribution, critical reasoning, contextual understanding, research design, interpretation of evidence, or final scholarly judgement.
04 Mandatory Generative AI Declaration Every manuscript must state whether generative AI was used
Every manuscript must include a Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Statement before the References, whether or not a covered technology was used. Use must also be reported in the cover letter or relevant submission field.
When AI was used, the statement must identify the tool and provider, model or version where available, date or period of access, specific purpose, affected task or manuscript section, and the human verification performed.
During the preparation of this manuscript, the author(s) used [tool, provider, and model/version where available] on [date or period] for [specific purpose]. The tool was applied to [identify tasks, sections, or materials]. All AI-assisted output was critically reviewed, verified, and revised by the author(s), who accept full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the final content.
The author(s) declare that no generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were used to generate or substantially modify the scholarly content of this manuscript. Routine tools used solely for non-generative spelling, formatting, calculation, or reference management are not included in this declaration.
Prompts and outputs are not routinely required for language-only assistance. The journal may request them when they are material to reproducibility, verification, or an integrity assessment.
05 AI as a Research Method or Object of Study Methodological reporting, validation, reproducibility, and synthetic data
When AI is used for data collection, classification, coding, analysis, simulation, prediction, intervention, assessment, content generation, or another part of the research design, its role must be reported in the Methods section rather than only in the manuscript-preparation declaration.
Report, where applicable:
- system, provider, model, version, and access date;
- research task, input data, and relevant preprocessing;
- material prompts, instructions, parameters, or settings;
- number and conditions of model runs;
- validation, error checking, and human-review procedures;
- limitations, uncertainty, bias, and reproducibility constraints;
- handling of personal, confidential, copyrighted, or protected information.
Synthetic data must be labelled clearly and must not be presented as observed empirical data. Authors should retain sufficient records to document the version and operating conditions used in the study.
06 References, Evidence, and Source Verification Original sources, fabricated references, attribution, and permissions
Authors must personally verify every reference against the original publication or another authoritative and retrievable source. AI-generated bibliographic information must never be accepted without verification.
An AI response is not a substitute for the original source supporting a scholarly claim. AI systems must not be cited as authors. When an AI system is a material research object or method, authors should cite retrievable provider documentation, model documentation, software records, datasets, or archived outputs as appropriate.
Fabricated, nonexistent, materially inaccurate, or misrepresented references constitute a serious policy breach. Authors remain responsible for proper attribution, copyright permissions, and avoiding plagiarism in text and media.
07 Images, Figures, Artwork, Audio, and Video Evidence integrity and the limited research-method exception
Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies must not be used to create, replace, add, remove, obscure, reconstruct, or materially alter visual or audiovisual content presented as research evidence.
J-HyTEL does not accept AI-generated graphical abstracts, illustrative artwork, decorative figures, promotional artwork, or cover images submitted by authors.
An exception applies when AI-generated or AI-modified media is itself an explicit and necessary research method or object of study. The use must be scientifically justified, ethically appropriate, clearly labelled, reproducibly described in the Methods and relevant captions, and supported by retained original and intermediate files.
Routine non-generative adjustments may be permitted only when they do not selectively add, remove, conceal, or misrepresent information. The journal may request original, unprocessed, layered, or source files.
08 Confidentiality, Privacy, and Intellectual Property Protected data, unpublished work, provider terms, and author authority
Authors must not upload confidential, proprietary, embargoed, identifiable, sensitive, or copyrighted third-party material to an external AI service unless they have the legal and ethical authority to do so and the service provides appropriate confidentiality, security, retention, and data-use safeguards.
Use must remain consistent with participant consent, ethics approval, data-protection obligations, institutional rules, contracts, funder requirements, and the journal's Copyright & License Policy .
Users are responsible for understanding whether information entered into a service may be retained, reviewed by humans, shared, or used to train or improve the provider's systems.
09 Use by Reviewers, Editors, and Journal Staff Confidentiality, independent judgement, and governed administrative tools
Peer reviewers
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, figures, data, supplementary files, review forms, author information, or editorial correspondence to external generative AI systems. Generative AI must not be used to evaluate or summarise a manuscript, generate criticism, draft or rewrite a review, translate confidential review content, or recommend an editorial decision.
Conventional local non-generative spelling or grammar checking may be used only when confidential material is not transmitted, retained, or exposed. The invited reviewer remains personally responsible for every comment and recommendation.
Editors and journal staff
Editors and staff must not upload confidential submission or peer-review material to external AI services where confidentiality cannot be assured. AI must not independently determine scope, originality, methodological quality, reviewer selection, editorial suitability, acceptance, correction, or retraction.
The journal may use appropriately governed automated or AI-assisted tools for limited administrative and integrity-support functions, such as similarity screening, metadata validation, duplicate detection, language checks, and image-integrity screening. Outputs are advisory and require human evaluation. No adverse editorial action will be based solely on an automated score or AI-detection result.
Production
If an authorised production provider uses an AI-assisted tool for copyediting, accessibility, or metadata preparation, the scholarly meaning must not be altered without human editorial review and, where material, author confirmation.
10 Verification, Non-Compliance, and Editorial Action Evidence-based assessment before and after publication
The editorial office may request clarification, a corrected declaration, prompts or outputs, revision histories, raw files, source images, code, data, validation records, or other documentation reasonably necessary to assess compliance.
Automated AI-detection results are preliminary indicators and are not conclusive evidence by themselves. The journal will consider the totality of the evidence, the type and extent of use, the author's explanation, the verification performed, and the effect on the reliability of the work.
Before publication
The journal may request clarification, correction, additional documentation, replacement of affected material, re-analysis, additional review, or rejection, depending on the seriousness and effect of the breach.
After publication
The journal may publish a clarification, correction, expression of concern, retraction, or another persistent notice in accordance with its Withdrawal, Retraction, and Correction Policy .
Serious fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, false authorship, confidentiality breaches, or deliberate deception may also be handled under the journal's Publication Ethics procedures. Authors will normally be given an opportunity to respond to material concerns and may use the journal's complaints and appeals procedure.
11 Related Policies and External Guidance Policy relationships and recognised scholarly-publishing guidance
This master policy should be read together with the following J-HyTEL policies:
The policy is informed by recognised guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics , the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors , and the World Association of Medical Editors . Reference to external guidance does not imply membership, accreditation, or transfer of editorial authority.