1. Overview

This policy regulates the acceptable and prohibited use of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI), AI-assisted technologies, language-assistance tools, and other assistive technologies in manuscript preparation, peer review, editorial handling, and publication at Review of Multidisciplinary Education, Culture and Pedagogy.

AI may be used only as a supportive tool. It must not replace human scholarly contribution, critical thinking, authorship responsibility, peer review judgment, ethical responsibility, or editorial decision-making.

The journal’s use of AI is guided by these principles:

• Transparency: AI use must be disclosed where this policy requires it.
• Human accountability: authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff remain fully responsible for their work, assessments, communications, and decisions.
• Confidentiality: manuscripts, reviewer reports, author responses, research data, supplementary materials, and other unpublished information must be protected.
• Integrity: AI must not be used to fabricate, falsify, manipulate, obscure, or misrepresent content, data, images, citations, authorship, peer review, or editorial processes.
• Privacy and intellectual property: AI use must comply with privacy, consent, copyright, licensing, institutional, and data protection requirements.
• Editorial independence: AI must not determine peer review recommendations, ethical judgments, editorial decisions, or post-publication actions.

Misuse of AI may be handled under the journal’s Publication Ethics.

2. For Authors

2.1 Acceptable Use

Authors may use Gen AI and AI-assisted tools for legitimate research and manuscript-preparation support, such as:

• brainstorming and organizing ideas;
• grammar, spelling, punctuation, language polishing, and readability;
• paraphrasing and translation;
• formatting and non-substantive presentation;
• literature or reference assistance;
• coding, data-related, or visualization assistance; and
• other appropriate support.

AI tools must not replace the authors’ own scholarly contribution, analysis, interpretation, argumentation, results, discussion, or conclusions. All AI-generated or AI-assisted output must be reviewed, verified, and edited by the authors. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, ethical compliance, and final content of the manuscript.

2.2 Disclosure

Authors must disclose any use of Gen AI, AI-assisted technologies, and relevant assistive technologies during research or manuscript preparation, including tools used for language assistance, translation, paraphrasing, coding, references, data, or visualization.

The disclosure goes in the Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted Technologies section of the Manuscript Template, placed after the Conclusion and before the References. Authors must name each tool and its actual function.

If AI was used:

During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [AI tool name, version, and developer] for [clear description of the purpose and extent of use]. All outputs underwent critical review and thorough editing by the authors to ensure factual accuracy, clarity, and adherence to academic standards. The authors take full responsibility for the integrity and content of this manuscript.

If AI was not used:

The authors declare that no generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were used in the preparation of this manuscript.

The declaration may be published with the article.

2.3 Authorship

Gen AI, AI-assisted technologies, and other tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. Authorship requires human scholarly contribution, accountability, approval of the final manuscript, and responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the work. See the Authorship policy.

2.4 Use in Research Methods, Data Analysis, and Code

If AI is part of the research method, data analysis, data processing, coding, instrument development, classification, predictive modelling, visualization, or another substantive research activity, its use must also be described in the Method section. Where relevant, authors should report the tool and version, the purpose of use, the workflow, the type of input and output, the extent of human verification, and any limitations affecting validity, reliability, transparency, or reproducibility.

The journal may request prompts, outputs, logs, code, original files, or other documents needed for verification.

2.5 Use in Figures, Images, and Graphics

AI must not be used to fabricate, falsify, misleadingly enhance, obscure, or manipulate research evidence. Where AI-generated or AI-assisted figures, images, or visualizations are scientifically and ethically appropriate, their use must be disclosed and verified by the authors. The journal may request original files, prompts, or outputs to check their integrity.

2.6 Prohibited Use by Authors

Authors must not use AI to:

1. replace their own substantive intellectual or scholarly contribution;
2. fabricate, falsify, manipulate, or misrepresent data, findings, analyses, results, or conclusions;
3. generate or use false, inaccurate, non-existent, unverifiable, or misleading citations or references;
4. cite sources that have not been independently verified;
5. conceal plagiarism, excessive similarity, duplicate publication, or inappropriate text reuse;
6. manipulate citations, reference lists, images, figures, tables, or other evidence in a misleading way;
7. generate inaccurate authorship, ethics, conflict of interest, funding, or data availability declarations;
8. insert hidden prompts, invisible text, or machine-targeted instructions meant to influence screening, peer review, editorial handling, indexing, or evaluation; or
9. misrepresent the role, extent, or purpose of AI use.

3. For Peer Reviewers

Independent assessment. Reviewers must assess manuscripts independently, based on their own expertise, critical evaluation, and ethical responsibility. Reviewers must not use Gen AI or AI-assisted tools to:

1. analyze, evaluate, interpret, or assess the scholarly content of a manuscript;
2. judge its validity, originality, significance, quality, or suitability;
3. generate or draft substantive review comments, assessments, or recommendations;
4. formulate recommendations on acceptance, revision, or rejection; or
5. replace the reviewer’s own judgment.

Confidentiality. Reviewers must not upload, enter, copy, or send a manuscript or any part of it (text, abstract, data, figures, tables, supplementary files, author responses, review forms, unpublished findings) to public, unsecured, or unauthorized AI systems.

Responsibility. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, independence, confidentiality, and integrity of their reports. Violation may be treated as a breach of peer review confidentiality or publication ethics. See the Peer Review Process.

4. For Editors and Editorial Staff

4.1 Permitted Supportive Use

Editors and editorial staff may use AI for supportive, non-decisional purposes, such as:

• grammar, spelling, and language polishing of non-confidential editorial text;
• improving the clarity of editorial communications;
• formatting and administrative help;
• organizing editorial notes and workflows;
• technical or administrative screening, for example checking that required sections and declarations are present;
• metadata organization and background literature support;
• developing editorial templates, workflows, and checklists; and
• developing, reviewing, and checking the consistency of journal policies, guidelines, templates, and forms.

AI-assisted editorial work remains subject to human review, verification, and final approval.

4.2 Confidential Materials

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, author responses, research data, supplementary files, and confidential editorial notes must not be uploaded to public, unsecured, or unauthorized AI systems. Where AI is used with such materials, it may be only through a local, offline, private, secure, or journal-controlled system with adequate safeguards for confidentiality, privacy, data protection, access control, and intellectual property.

4.3 Prohibited Use by Editors

Editors and editorial staff must not use AI to:

1. decide whether a manuscript is accepted, revised, or rejected;
2. replace scholarly or ethical judgment;
3. determine scientific validity or scholarly merit;
4. replace the independent assessment of peer reviewers;
5. make final judgments on misconduct or ethical violations without human assessment; or
6. determine post-publication actions.

All editorial decisions are made by human editors, based on academic expertise, review results, editorial assessment, ethical considerations, and the journal’s policies.

4.4 Disclosure by Editors

Editors and editorial staff must disclose substantive use of AI in editorial work, according to the nature of the activity, identifying the tool and its general purpose. Routine uses such as grammar checking or formatting do not normally need separate disclosure.

As a general disclosure, ROMEO states that its editors and editorial staff may use Gen AI and AI-assisted tools [e.g., ChatGPT: name only the tools you actually use] to support non-decisional editorial activities, including policy development, preparation of guidelines and templates, workflow development, administrative and technical support, language assistance, consistency checking, and editorial communications. This does not replace specific disclosure where AI is used substantively in a particular activity.

Editors and editorial staff remain fully responsible for confidentiality, editorial integrity, scholarly and ethical judgment, communications, and all editorial decisions.

5. Confidentiality, Privacy, and Intellectual Property

All parties must protect confidential and unpublished materials, including manuscripts, research data, reviewer reports, author responses, supplementary materials, and editorial communications. These materials must not be uploaded, copied, shared, analyzed, summarized, or otherwise processed through public, unsecured, or unauthorized AI systems.

AI use must comply with applicable copyright and licensing terms, privacy and data protection requirements, participant consent, institutional regulations, author rights, and third-party intellectual property rights. Where an authorized private or journal-controlled system is used, appropriate confidentiality, security, access control, and intellectual property safeguards must remain in place.

6. AI-Related Misconduct

The following may be treated as AI-related publication misconduct:

1. failing to disclose AI use where disclosure is required;
2. misrepresenting the role, extent, or purpose of AI use;
3. fabricating, falsifying, or manipulating content using AI;
4. using fabricated, unverifiable, misleading, or AI-hallucinated citations or references;
5. using AI to conceal plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate text reuse, or unethical authorship;
6. misleading AI-assisted manipulation of images, figures, tables, or other evidence;
7. using hidden prompts, invisible text, or machine-targeted content to manipulate scholarly or editorial systems;
8. reviewers using AI in place of independent assessment;
9. editors using AI to make or replace editorial or ethical decisions;
10. unauthorized disclosure or processing of confidential manuscript or review materials through AI systems; and
11. any other AI use that compromises authorship responsibility, research integrity, confidentiality, peer review integrity, editorial independence, or the scholarly record.

7. Compliance and Accountability

Failure to comply with this policy may lead to editorial action under the journal’s Publication Ethics and, where applicable, the Research Misconduct and Post-Publication Policy. Depending on the nature, severity, and timing of the issue, the journal may:

1. request clarification, revision, correction, or additional disclosure;
2. request supporting documents or records of AI use;
3. reject a manuscript before or during peer review;
4. suspend the editorial or publication process;
5. decline or discontinue a reviewer’s involvement;
6. issue a correction, expression of concern, retraction, removal, replacement, or other notice;
7. refer the matter to an institution, ethics committee, funder, or other authority; or
8. take other action needed to protect the scholarly record.

Action is based on the available evidence, the nature and severity of the issue, ethical considerations, and the potential impact on research integrity, confidentiality, peer review integrity, editorial independence, or the scholarly record.

8. Relationship with Other Journal Policies

This policy is part of the journal’s publication ethics framework. Matters not covered here are handled under the journal’s Publication Ethics, Author Guidelines, Peer Review Process, Authorship, Research Ethics, Data Availability, and Research Misconduct and Post-Publication Policy.

9. Policy Review

The journal regularly reviews this policy and may update it in response to developments in Gen AI and AI-assisted technologies, publication ethics standards, COPE recommendations, scholarly publishing practice, and regulatory and accreditation requirements.

10. References

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Authorship and AI tools.
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Focus on artificial intelligence.
• Elsevier. Generative AI policies for journals.
• STM Association. Generative AI in scholarly communications: Ethical and practical guidelines for the use of generative AI in the publication process.