Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy

AKSEN Journal of Contemporary Islamic Law (AJCIL)

This policy governs the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies (e.g., large language models such as ChatGPT, Claude, or similar tools) by authors, reviewers, and editors involved with AJCIL. It is informed by the position adopted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and broadly consistent with positions taken by major publishers and editorial associations (e.g., WAME, ICMJE-aligned journals).

 

1. Core Principle

AI tools may assist authors, reviewers, and editors in aspects of the scholarly process, but they cannot take intellectual or legal responsibility for the content, integrity, or conclusions of a submitted or published work. Responsibility and accountability for all content — including any text, analysis, or material produced with AI assistance — rests entirely with the human author(s), reviewer, or editor involved.

2. AI and Authorship

  • AI tools cannot be listed as an author or co-author of any manuscript submitted to or published in AJCIL, regardless of the extent of their contribution to drafting.
  • This is because authorship requires the ability to take responsibility and be held accountable for the work — including its accuracy, integrity, and originality — and to give consent to publication, none of which an AI tool is capable of.
  • All named authors must meet standard authorship criteria (see the journal's Publication Ethics Statement, Section 1): substantial intellectual contribution, drafting or critical revision, final approval of the version submitted, and agreement to be accountable for the work.

3. Use of Generative AI in Manuscript Preparation

Authors may use generative AI and AI-assisted tools for limited, clearly bounded purposes, such as:

  • Improving language, grammar, clarity, or readability of a manuscript originally conceived and drafted by the author(s);
  • Assisting with literature searching, formatting references, or checking citation consistency (subject to independent verification by the author — see Section 6);
  • Generating an initial outline or brainstorming structure, which the author(s) then substantively develop, verify, and take ownership of.

Generative AI tools must not be used to:

  • Generate substantive legal analysis, doctrinal argument, or scholarly conclusions that are then presented as the author's own original reasoning without substantial human intellectual contribution and verification;
  • Fabricate, alter, or embellish data, sources, case citations, or quotations;
  • Replace the author's own critical engagement with primary Islamic legal sources or secondary literature.

4. Mandatory Disclosure

Any use of generative AI or AI-assisted technology in the preparation of a submitted manuscript must be disclosed by the author(s) in the Methods section (or, where a formal methods section is not applicable to the article type, in an Acknowledgments or Author's Note section). The disclosure should specify:

  • The name and version of the AI tool(s) used (e.g., "ChatGPT-4," "Claude," etc.);
  • The specific purpose(s) for which it was used (e.g., "language editing," "reference formatting assistance," "initial literature search");
  • Confirmation that the author(s) have reviewed, verified, and take full responsibility for all AI-assisted content.

Non-disclosure of material AI use discovered after submission or publication will be treated as a violation of this policy and may be addressed under the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, up to and including correction or retraction where warranted.

5. Prohibition on Uploading Manuscripts to Third-Party AI Tools

Authors, reviewers, and editors must not upload a submitted, in-review, or accepted manuscript (or any substantial part of it) to a public or third-party generative AI tool, because doing so may:

  • Breach the confidentiality obligations owed to authors during peer review (see Peer Review Process, Section 8);
  • Risk unauthorized disclosure or reproduction of unpublished work;
  • Potentially violate copyright or licensing terms once an article has been accepted.

6. Author Responsibility and Verification

Authors remain fully and solely responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of their entire manuscript, including any portion prepared with AI assistance. This includes an obligation to:

  • Independently verify any factual claims, case citations, statutory references, or quotations generated or suggested by an AI tool, since generative AI models can produce plausible-sounding but inaccurate or fabricated citations ("hallucinations");
  • Ensure that AI-assisted text does not infringe the intellectual property or rights of others;
  • Correct any AI-introduced errors prior to submission.

7. Use of AI in Figures, Images, and Artwork

a. Policy Statement

AJCIL restricts and, in most cases, prohibits the use of AI-generated images, figures, or artwork that purport to represent real data, real events, real persons, or real legal/institutional settings (e.g., a courtroom, a manuscript, a historical scene, a signed document, or a data visualization implying it reflects actual research findings).

This restriction exists because such images can mislead readers into believing they are viewing an authentic photographic, archival, or data-derived record when they are not — a risk to the integrity of the scholarly record that is distinct from, and generally treated more strictly than, the use of AI in assisting with prose (see the main Generative AI Policy, Sections 3–4).

b. What Is Prohibited

AI-generated or AI-modified visual content is not permitted where it:

  • Depicts data, statistics, charts, or graphs as though generated from the author's actual research findings, when it was not (e.g., an AI-fabricated "chart" standing in for real empirical results);
  • Depicts a purportedly real event, place, document, manuscript, or artifact (e.g., a fabricated image presented as a historical manuscript, courtroom scene, or archival photograph);
  • Depicts a real, identifiable person in a fabricated or altered scene or context;
  • Is presented without disclosure in a way that could reasonably lead a reader to believe it is an authentic photograph, scan, or screenshot.

c. What Remains Permitted (With Disclosure)

AI-generated visual content may be used, subject to the disclosure requirements in Section 4, where it is clearly:

  • Illustrative or conceptual — for example, a generic explanatory diagram, schematic, or conceptual illustration that does not purport to depict a specific real event, dataset, document, or person (e.g., a stylized diagram illustrating the structure of a legal reasoning process);
  • Editorial/decorative — cover art, section dividers, or similar non-evidentiary visual elements that make no factual claim;
  • Author-generated data visualizations produced through legitimate means (e.g., standard charting/statistical software) — the general prohibition on AI image generation in this document does not apply to ordinary charts and graphs created from an author's real dataset using conventional tools; the concern here is specifically with AI image generation used to fabricate the appearance of data or authenticity, not with using software to plot genuine figures.

d. Disclosure Requirements

Where any AI-generated or AI-assisted visual content is used in a permitted capacity (Section 3), the author must:

  • Disclose its AI origin in the figure caption (e.g., "Illustration generated using [tool name/version]") and/or in the Methods/Acknowledgments section, consistent with the disclosure standard in the main Generative AI Policy, Section 4;
  • Ensure the caption or surrounding text does not create a false impression that the image is a genuine photograph, scan, archival record, or output of empirical research.

e. Figures Derived from Real Sources

Where a figure reproduces or is derived from a real photograph, manuscript image, map, or archival document (e.g., a scanned page of a classical fiqh text, a photograph of a court building), standard sourcing and permission rules apply as normal (see Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, Section 5 on Intellectual Property) — this document does not change those requirements. AI tools must not be used to alter such genuine source images in a way that misrepresents their original content (e.g., removing, adding, or altering visible elements) without disclosure.

f. Editorial Review

  • Submitted figures and images may be reviewed by the editorial or production team for compliance with this policy prior to publication.
  • Where an image is suspected of being AI-generated and undisclosed, or of misrepresenting real data or events, the editor may request the author's source files, generation history, or an explanation, consistent with the journal's approach to suspected misconduct (see Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, Section 7).
  • Undisclosed use of a prohibited AI-generated image discovered after publication will be handled under the journal's Retraction and Correction Policy.

g. Rationale

This approach reflects a restriction adopted, in substance, by a number of major scholarly publishers in response to concerns about AI-generated images being mistaken for authentic data or documentation. 

8. Use of AI in the Peer Review Process

  • Reviewers must not upload manuscripts under review into generative AI tools, for the confidentiality reasons stated in Section 5.
  • Reviewers may use AI-assisted tools for limited administrative purposes (e.g., improving the clarity of their own review report's language), but the substantive scholarly judgment, evaluation, and recommendation in a peer review report must be the reviewer's own.
  • Reviewers should disclose to the handling editor if they made any use of AI tools in preparing their review.

9. Use of AI in Editorial Decision-Making

  • Editorial decisions (desk rejection, acceptance, rejection, or requests for revision) must be made by human editors exercising independent scholarly judgment.
  • AI tools may be used to support administrative or organizational tasks in the editorial workflow (e.g., initial plagiarism/similarity screening, formatting checks), but must not be the basis for a substantive editorial or peer-review judgment without human oversight and final decision-making authority.

10. Policy Review

Given how rapidly generative AI capabilities and publishing-sector norms are evolving, this policy will be reviewed periodically by the editorial board, with reference to updated guidance from COPE and comparable scholarly publishing bodies.