AI GUIDELINES
AI GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS
We recognise the potential of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies (“AI tools”) to enhance research efficiency and improve the accessibility of written work. Authors may use AI tools responsibly and under appropriate human oversight to support their work, as outlined below. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all content they submit.
Permitted uses of AI (please specify if used):
- Brainstorming ideas or outlines
- Finding or summarizing related works
- Proofreading and editing their own original writing
- Translating their own original writing
Uses of AI that are not permitted:
- Relying on AI as a replacement for human critical thinking, analysis, or expertise
- Generating complete sections of text without human review or substantial human input
- Uploading or otherwise providing confidential, unpublished, or third-party content to AI tools
GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS
We recognise the potential of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies (“AI tools”) to help reviewers assess submissions more efficiently. Reviewers may use AI tools responsibly and under strict human oversight, as outlined below. They must ensure that any AI-generated output is carefully checked for accuracy, impartiality, and confidentiality. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content and tone of their reviews.
Permitted uses of AI (please specify if used):
- Using AI tools to gain a better understanding of complex concepts or technologies
- Identifying or summarising relevant research literature
- Proofreading or editing their own original review text
- Adjusting the tone of their reviews to improve clarity or professionalism
Uses of AI that are not permitted:
- Using AI as a replacement for human judgment, critical evaluation, or expertise
- Uploading or otherwise providing any original materials from submissions, including authors’ unpublished work, to AI tools
- Relying on AI-generated content without thoroughly verifying its accuracy and impartiality
- Sharing confidential information or details about submissions with AI tools or third parties
REVIEW POLICY
We ask reviewers to accept only those manuscripts that fall within their area of expertise and to disclose to the editors any conflicts of interest with the authors they are asked to review, whenever such a conflict can be identified from the anonymized submission.
Conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to, being close colleagues or family members, being romantically involved, collaborating on the same research project, or otherwise maintaining a close professional collaboration at the time of review.
We also ask reviewers to respond to review invitations promptly whenever possible and to submit their completed reviews within the suggested timeframe. If circumstances prevent a reviewer from completing their review on time, they are expected to contact the editor in advance, so that this can be considered.
Reviewers are also expected to provide constructive feedback to authors, including concrete examples and suggestions for improving the text. Reviews must not be influenced by the author’s nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, or commercial interests. Feedback should always remain respectful and must not contain hostile or provocative language.
Reviewers should therefore refrain from making personal attacks, defamatory or slanderous remarks, sexualized or racialized comments, abusive language, or any other derogatory remarks. Where these basic principles are not respected, the editors reserve the right, depending on the severity of the abuse, to ask the reviewer to rephrase their feedback or to disregard the review entirely.