AI Usage Policy

Jurnal Venus, published by Politeknik Ilmu Pelayaran Makassar, Indonesia, recognizes that artificial intelligence (AI), including generative AI and AI-assisted technologies, may support scholarly communication. However, these technologies can also produce inaccurate information, fabricated references, biased outputs, and risks to originality, confidentiality, intellectual property, and research integrity.

This policy establishes the conditions for responsible AI use in the preparation, editorial handling, and publication of scholarly manuscripts. It is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) position on authorship and AI tools, and by the Indonesian 2026 Technical Guidelines for Scientific Journal Accreditation (Director General Decree No. 374/DST/D.D1/HM.01.01/2026), particularly the requirements concerning AI use in publication and peer review.

This policy applies to all authors, co-authors, editors, editorial staff, peer reviewers, and other parties involved in the submission, assessment, production, and publication of manuscripts in Jurnal Venus.

For the purpose of this policy, AI tools include generative language or image systems, large language models, and AI-assisted applications that generate, transform, analyze, or evaluate scholarly content. Routine software features must still be used in ways that protect confidentiality, accuracy, and intellectual property.

1. Integrity: The substantive intellectual contribution, interpretation, and conclusions must remain those of the human author(s).
2. Transparency: Authors and editors must disclose relevant AI use, including the tool and the purpose of use, as applicable to their roles.
3. Accountability: Human authors and editors retain full responsibility for scholarly content and editorial decisions.
4. Validity and Verification: All facts, citations, data, outputs, and analyses must be independently checked against reliable evidence and appropriate methods.
5. Confidentiality and Fairness: Unpublished manuscripts, personal data, and proprietary research information must be protected, and AI must not create discriminatory or biased decision-making.

1. Safeguarding scholarship: Maintain the originality, credibility, reproducibility, and ethical standards of published research.
2. Providing clear guidance: Clarify permitted and prohibited practices for authors, editors, and peer reviewers.
3. Maintaining compliance: Align journal practices with applicable Indonesian accreditation requirements, COPE guidance, and relevant research ethics and data-protection obligations.
4. Supporting responsible innovation: Permit appropriate uses of AI that assist rather than replace human scholarly work.

Authors may use AI-assisted tools as supplementary aids, provided that use is transparent, lawful, scientifically justified, and subject to meaningful human control. Permitted applications may include:

1. Language assistance: Proofreading, grammar, spelling, readability, and language refinement.
2. Technical preparation: Formatting, organizing references, and improving manuscript presentation, provided all references are independently verified.
3. Literature support: Assistance in identifying or summarizing literature, subject to direct examination and accurate citation of the original sources.
4. Research assistance: Supporting coding, computation, or data analysis when the use is methodologically appropriate, clearly documented, independently validated, and consistent with applicable research ethics.
5. Accessibility support: Translation or other accessibility-related assistance where accuracy is checked by the author(s).

Authors must disclose substantive AI assistance in an AI Use Declaration. AI involvement in research design, data processing, analysis, or the generation of research materials must also be described in the Methods section with sufficient detail for assessment or reproducibility. Authors must not submit confidential or sensitive information to an AI service without appropriate authority and safeguards.

1. Substitution of authorship: Submitting work produced by AI without meaningful human scholarly contribution, interpretation, verification, and accountability.
2. Undisclosed AI assistance: Concealing substantive use of AI in preparing text, images, data, methods, or analyses.
3. Fabrication or falsification: Using AI to invent, alter, or misrepresent research data, findings, images, citations, participants, or other scholarly evidence.
4. Unverified content: Presenting AI-generated claims or references as verified scholarly facts without checking the primary sources.
5. False authorship: Listing an AI tool or AI system as an author or co-author.
6. Confidentiality breaches: Uploading unpublished manuscripts, protected datasets, personal information, reviewer reports, or other confidential material to unauthorized AI platforms.
7. Delegated scholarly judgment: Using AI to replace the author's scientific interpretation or the editor's independent assessment and final decision.

1. Disclosure: Declare the name of any AI tool used, the purpose and extent of use, and where it affected the manuscript or research process.
2. Verification: Check every AI-assisted statement, citation, interpretation, image, computation, and research output before submission.
3. Originality: Ensure compliance with research ethics, copyright, data protection, consent, and plagiarism policies.
4. Authorship: Include only human contributors who meet the journal's authorship criteria. AI tools must not be credited as authors.
5. Accountability: Accept full responsibility for the final submitted and published manuscript, including any AI-assisted content.
6. Cooperation: Provide a clear explanation or relevant documentation of AI use when reasonably requested during editorial assessment.

1. Human decision-making: Editors must personally evaluate scholarly quality and make all editorial decisions. AI must not replace scientific assessment or editorial judgment.
2. Transparent support: Any relevant AI use by editors must be disclosed internally to the Editor-in-Chief or documented within the editorial workflow, stating the tool and purpose.
3. Confidentiality: Editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts or confidential editorial materials to unauthorized AI services.
4. Administrative tools: Editors may use appropriate authorized tools for limited administrative or language-support tasks, subject to confidentiality protections and human review.
5. Fair assessment: Suspicion of AI misuse or the output of an AI-detection system alone must not be treated as conclusive proof of misconduct; concerns must be assessed fairly.

1. Prohibition on AI in peer review: Peer reviewers must not use AI tools to analyze, assess, or evaluate manuscripts; generate review comments or recommendations; or otherwise conduct their peer-review duties.
2. No manuscript upload: Peer reviewers must never enter or upload a submitted manuscript, any portion of it, associated data, figures, tables, or confidential review material into an AI application.
3. Independent review: All comments and recommendations must be prepared independently by the appointed human reviewer in accordance with the journal's review policy.
4. Report concerns: A reviewer who encounters a potential AI-related ethical concern must notify the handling editor confidentially and should not initiate an independent investigation using AI.

Suspected misuse of AI will be examined by the editorial team through a fair, proportionate, and documented process. The person concerned will be given an opportunity to respond, and decisions will be based on available evidence rather than automated AI-detection scores alone.

Depending on the nature and severity of a substantiated violation, Jurnal Venus may take one or more of the following measures:

1. Before publication: Request clarification, disclosure, correction, or resubmission; suspend consideration; or reject the manuscript when justified.
2. After publication: Publish an appropriate correction, expression of concern, or retraction in accordance with the journal's Corrections and Retractions Policy.
3. Editorial and reviewer conduct: Withdraw a review assignment, exclude a compromised review, or reconsider an editorial role following an appropriate examination.
4. Serious or repeated misconduct: Apply proportionate submission restrictions or refer a substantiated concern to an appropriate institution, where warranted.
5. Appeals: Allow affected parties to raise concerns or appeal editorial handling through the journal's Complaints and Appeals procedure.

This policy will be reviewed periodically by the Jurnal Venus editorial board and updated when necessary to reflect developments in AI technologies, publication-ethics guidance, applicable regulations, and scientific-journal accreditation standards.

This policy should be read together with the journal's Publication Ethics, Peer Review Process, Author Guidelines, Complaints and Appeals, and Corrections and Retractions policies. The final interpretation and implementation of this policy rest with the authorized editorial board, subject to applicable law and ethical standards.