AI Policy

AI Policy

This policy explains how authors, editors, and reviewers may and may not use artificial intelligence (AI) tools in work submitted to or handled by Jurnal Litek : Jurnal Listrik Telekomunikasi Elektronika. It follows the COPE position on authorship and AI tools and the Indonesian journal accreditation guidelines (Decree of the Director General of Science and Technology No. 374/DST/D.D1/HM.01.01/2026). It applies to all manuscripts under consideration from the date it is published on this website.

Definition. In this policy, generative AI means any tool that produces text, images, code, or data in response to prompts, such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, or AI-based paraphrasing and translation tools. Basic spelling checkers that do not generate new text, reference managers, and similarity-check software are not covered by this policy.

1. Authors

  1. AI cannot be an author. AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors, and cannot be cited as authors. Only humans can take responsibility for a manuscript, declare conflicts of interest, and agree to the publication license.
  2. Permitted uses, with disclosure. Authors may use generative AI to improve the language and readability of text they wrote themselves, to translate their own text, and to help with code formatting or debugging. Every output must be checked and edited by the authors.
  3. Prohibited uses. Authors must not use generative AI to:
    • create, fabricate, or alter research data, results, or statistical analyses;
    • create or alter figures, images, or tables presented as research findings;
    • generate references or citations that the authors have not read and verified;
    • produce the scientific substance of the manuscript, including the research problem, interpretation of results, and conclusions.
  4. AI as part of the research method. When AI are part of the research itself, authors must describe them in the Methods section. This includes the tool or model name, version, provider, settings, and date of use, and the prompts where relevant, so that the work can be reproduced.
  5. Mandatory declaration. Every manuscript must include a section titled Declaration of Generative AI Use placed before the References. It states the tool and version, the purpose, and the parts of the manuscript involved, and confirms that the authors reviewed the output and take full responsibility. If no generative AI was used, the authors must state this.
  6. Responsibility. Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the entire manuscript, including any part produced with AI assistance.

2. Editors

  1. Confidentiality. Editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, author information, or review reports to public generative AI tools, because these tools may store or reuse the content.
  2. Permitted tools. Editors may use the journal's similarity-check service, reference and metadata validation tools, and basic spelling checkers. Results from AI-text detectors are treated only as indicators and are never the sole basis for an editorial decision.
  3. Human decisions. All editorial decisions, including desk rejection, reviewer selection, and acceptance or rejection, are made by human editors and are not delegated to AI.
  4. Disclosure. Any use of AI by an editor in handling a manuscript must be recorded in the editorial system and reported to the Editor-in-Chief. If AI-assisted copyediting changes the text, the authors are informed at the proofreading stage.

3. Reviewers

  1. No AI in peer review. Reviewers must not use AI tools at any stage of peer review. This includes reading, summarizing, evaluating, or critiquing the manuscript, and writing, translating, or polishing the review report.
  2. No uploading. Reviewers must not upload, paste, or share any part of a manuscript, its data, or its figures to any AI tool.
  3. Confirmation. Reviewers must confirm in the review form that no AI tool was used in preparing their review.
  4. Consequences. If a review report appears to be AI-generated, the editor may set it aside, invite another reviewer, and remove the reviewer from the journal's reviewer list.

4. Handling of violations

  1. The journal may check submissions with similarity-check and AI-detection tools. Final judgement is always made by the editors.
  2. If undisclosed or prohibited AI use is found before publication, the editor will ask the authors for clarification. Depending on its seriousness, the manuscript will be returned for correction and proper disclosure, or rejected.
  3. If a violation is found after publication, the journal will follow the COPE flowcharts. Outcomes may include a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction. Retracted articles remain online with a clear retraction notice.
  4. Fabricated data or references produced with AI are treated as research misconduct. The journal may inform the authors' institution.

5. Revision of this policy

This policy will be periodically reviewed in response to technological developments and evolving best practices in academic publishing. Questions may be sent to the editorial office through the Contact page.