AI Usage Policy

Jurnal Venus, published by Politeknik Ilmu Pelayaran Makassar, Indonesia, recognizes that artificial intelligence, including generative AI and AI-assisted technologies, may support certain aspects of scholarly communication and research. At the same time, these technologies may produce inaccurate information, fabricated references, biased outputs, inappropriate alterations, and risks relating to originality, confidentiality, intellectual property, data protection, and research integrity.

This policy establishes requirements for transparent, responsible, and accountable AI use by authors, editors, editorial staff, and peer reviewers. AI tools must never replace human intellectual contribution, scholarly judgment, verification, or responsibility.

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

For the purposes of this policy, AI tools include generative language systems, large language models, image-generation systems, AI-assisted coding or analytical tools, translation systems, and other applications capable of generating, transforming, summarizing, analyzing, or evaluating scholarly content.

1. Human accountability: Human contributors retain full responsibility for all scholarly content, research decisions, interpretations, conclusions, citations, and published material.
2. Transparency: Relevant use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies must be disclosed clearly and accurately.
3. Verification: AI-generated or AI-assisted information must be independently checked against reliable and preferably primary scholarly sources.
4. Originality and integrity: AI must not be used to fabricate data, references, results, images, participants, quotations, or scholarly evidence.
5. Confidentiality: Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, personal information, confidential data, and proprietary research materials must not be uploaded to unauthorized AI services.
6. Human scholarly judgment: AI must assist rather than replace scientific interpretation, critical reasoning, peer review, or editorial decision-making.

Authors may use AI-assisted technologies as supplementary tools when the use is lawful, transparent, scientifically appropriate, subject to meaningful human control, and does not replace the author's intellectual contribution.

1. Language assistance: grammar, spelling, readability, proofreading, and language refinement.
2. Translation assistance: translation may be used when the authors independently verify accuracy, meaning, terminology, and scholarly context.
3. Technical assistance: formatting, coding support, computation, or other technical tasks when appropriate and independently validated.
4. Literature support: AI may assist in identifying potentially relevant literature, but authors must directly access, read, evaluate, and cite the original sources.
5. Research methodology: where AI is itself part of the research method, its role, system or model, relevant settings, procedures, validation, and limitations must be described sufficiently in the Methods section.

1. Submitting substantially AI-generated scholarly work without meaningful human intellectual contribution, verification, interpretation, and accountability.
2. Using AI to fabricate, falsify, alter, or misrepresent research data, results, participants, quotations, references, figures, tables, images, or other evidence.
3. Citing AI-generated references, bibliographic records, quotations, or factual claims without directly verifying the original source.
4. Using AI-generated paraphrasing to conceal plagiarism, unattributed borrowing, or inappropriate text reuse.
5. Uploading confidential, sensitive, personal, proprietary, unpublished, or otherwise protected research material to an AI service without appropriate authorization and safeguards.
6. Listing an AI system, chatbot, large language model, or other non-human system as an author or co-author.

AI systems must not be treated as substitutes for original scholarly sources. Authors must consult and cite the actual journal article, book, dataset, regulation, standard, or other primary or authoritative source on which a scholarly claim is based.

Every bibliographic reference suggested or identified through an AI system must be independently verified. Authors remain responsible for the accuracy of author names, titles, journal names, publication details, DOI records, URLs, and all other citation metadata.

Authors must not use generative AI to create or alter research data, experimental results, documentary evidence, participant responses, photographs, scientific images, or other research outputs in a manner that misrepresents the underlying evidence.

When generation, processing, or analysis by an AI system is itself part of the research methodology, the use must be scientifically justified, transparently reported in the Methods section, independently validated where appropriate, and clearly distinguished from original empirical observations.

Every manuscript must contain an AI Usage Statement. Authors must disclose relevant use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies and identify the tool, purpose, and extent of its use. The statement must appear in the declaration section of the manuscript.

When AI is used as part of the research methodology, a declaration alone is insufficient; the relevant methodological details must also be reported in the Methods section.

1. Editors must make all substantive editorial judgments independently and must not delegate manuscript assessment or final editorial decisions to an AI system.
2. Editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, author correspondence, supplementary files, confidential data, or other protected editorial materials to unauthorized external AI services.
3. Limited administrative or language-support tools may be used only where confidentiality is protected and the resulting output is reviewed by an authorized human editor.
4. AI-detection scores or automated assessments must not be treated as conclusive evidence of misconduct. Editors must examine the relevant evidence and provide fair editorial handling.

1. Reviewers must not use AI tools to analyze, summarize, assess, evaluate, score, or interpret submitted manuscripts.
2. Reviewers must not use AI systems to generate reviewer comments, recommendations, editorial advice, or peer-review reports.
3. Reviewers must never upload manuscripts, abstracts, excerpts, figures, tables, supplementary files, data, or confidential review material to an AI service.
4. Reviewer reports and recommendations must be prepared independently by the appointed human reviewer. Suspected AI-related misconduct should be reported confidentially to the handling editor rather than investigated independently using AI.

Suspected inappropriate AI use will be examined by the editorial team through a fair, proportionate, confidential, and documented process. Authors, reviewers, or editors concerned will normally be given an opportunity to provide clarification where appropriate.

Editorial decisions must be based on available evidence and contextual assessment. Automated AI-detection scores, stylistic impressions, or suspicion alone are not treated as conclusive proof of misconduct.

Depending on the nature and severity of a substantiated violation, Jurnal Venus may request clarification or correction, require disclosure, return the manuscript for revision, suspend processing, reject the manuscript, exclude a compromised review, issue a correction or retraction after publication, or refer serious concerns to the relevant institution where appropriate.

If inappropriate or undisclosed AI use is identified after publication and materially affects the accuracy, originality, integrity, or reliability of the published record, Jurnal Venus may publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction in accordance with the journal's Corrections and Retractions Policy and applicable publication-ethics procedures.

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

This policy should be read together with the Jurnal Venus Author Guidelines, Peer Review Process, Plagiarism Policy, Publication Ethics, Complaints and Appeals Policy, and Corrections and Retractions Policy.