Artificial Intelligence Policy

1. General Policy and Ethical Principles

Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Pertanian (JIIP) recognises the increasing role of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in scientific research, scholarly writing, data processing, statistical analysis, and academic publishing. The journal supports the responsible use of AI-assisted tools when their application enhances research efficiency, analytical accuracy, and the clarity of scholarly communication without compromising academic integrity, research originality, human accountability, or ethical publication standards.
JIIP establishes this policy in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Position Statement on Authorship and AI Tools, which addresses the limitations of AI systems in fulfilling authorship responsibilities and establishes the importance of human accountability and transparent disclosure of AI-assisted contributions.
The journal also considers the principles of accountability, fairness, transparency, responsible governance, and human oversight discussed in the COPE Discussion Document on Artificial Intelligence in Decision Making. AI technologies must support, rather than replace, the independent scientific judgement of authors, reviewers, and editors.
This policy applies to all manuscripts submitted to JIIP, including original research articles and other manuscript categories accepted by the journal. It governs the use of generative AI, large language models, machine learning systems, automated analytical applications, AI-assisted image generation, and other computational tools incorporating artificial intelligence.

2. Artificial Intelligence and Authorship Eligibility

Artificial intelligence systems, generative language models, chatbots, and other automated technologies cannot be listed as authors or coauthors of manuscripts submitted to JIIP. AI systems cannot provide informed consent, approve the final manuscript, accept legal responsibility, disclose competing interests independently, or fulfil the ethical obligations associated with scholarly authorship.
This restriction follows the COPE Position Statement on Authorship and AI Tools, which establishes that AI tools cannot qualify for authorship because they cannot assume responsibility for submitted scholarly work.
Only individuals who satisfy JIIP's established authorship criteria may be recognised as authors. Human authors remain fully responsible for the originality, accuracy, validity, ethical compliance, and intellectual integrity of all manuscript content, including material generated, revised, or analysed with AI assistance.
Authors must not identify AI systems as authors in manuscript titles, author lists, contribution statements, or publication metadata. When AI-assisted tools make substantive contributions to manuscript preparation or research procedures, authors must disclose their use in accordance with the requirements described in this policy.

3. Permitted Uses of Artificial Intelligence by Authors

JIIP permits responsible AI assistance for activities that support scholarly research and manuscript preparation, provided that authors maintain intellectual control over the research process and independently verify the outputs.
Permitted applications may include language editing, grammar correction, improvements to academic readability, literature organisation, coding assistance, exploratory data analysis, statistical programming, research visualisation, and other computational activities that do not compromise scientific accuracy or ethical research conduct.
AI-assisted tools may also support agricultural research involving crop classification, plant disease identification, agricultural image analysis, soil property modelling, yield prediction, precision agriculture, remote sensing, livestock monitoring, and agricultural economic forecasting. Their use must be scientifically justified, methodologically documented, and subject to appropriate validation.
Authors must exercise independent scientific judgement when interpreting AI-assisted findings. AI-generated explanations, predictions, classifications, and recommendations must not be accepted without critical evaluation against reliable evidence, established research methods, and the limitations of the relevant model.
These requirements reflect the importance of human oversight, accountability, and transparency discussed in the COPE discussion of responsible AI-assisted decision making.

4. Mandatory Disclosure of AI Use

Authors must disclose the substantive use of artificial intelligence tools in research design, manuscript drafting, data collection, data processing, statistical analysis, image preparation, reference organisation, or other scholarly activities that affect the research methods or reported content.
The disclosure must identify the AI tool or system, its developer or provider, the version where relevant and available, the purpose of its use, and the specific research or manuscript preparation activities it supported. Authors must explain how AI-generated outputs were reviewed, validated, or modified by human researchers.
JIIP adopts this disclosure requirement in line with the transparency and accountability principles discussed in the COPE Position Statement on Authorship and AI Tools.
When AI tools contribute to research methodology, data processing, predictive modelling, or statistical analysis, the disclosure must appear in the Materials and Methods or Research Methods section. When AI tools contribute primarily to manuscript drafting or language preparation, authors should include a separate declaration titled "Declaration of AI-Assisted Tools" before the References section or in another location specified by the editorial office.
Routine use of conventional spelling correction or basic word-processing functions does not ordinarily require a separate declaration unless the tool substantially generates, modifies, or interprets scholarly content. Authors must disclose any AI use that could reasonably affect the interpretation, reproducibility, attribution, or integrity of the research.

5. Recommended AI Disclosure Statement

Authors who use AI-assisted tools must provide a transparent declaration describing the scope of their use. The following statement may be adapted to reflect the actual research process and the specific tools employed.
Declaration of AI-Assisted Tools
"During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [AI tool name, developer, and version] for [specific purpose]. The authors independently reviewed, verified, and revised the AI-assisted outputs and accept full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, scientific integrity, and ethical compliance of the final manuscript."
When authors do not use AI-assisted tools in research activities or substantive manuscript preparation, they may include the following statement: "The authors declare that no generative artificial intelligence tools were used in the research process or substantive preparation of this manuscript."
AI disclosure statements must be truthful, sufficiently specific, and consistent with the actual use of the technology. Incomplete or misleading declarations may require editorial clarification or further investigation.

6. Prohibited Uses of Artificial Intelligence

JIIP prohibits the use of artificial intelligence to fabricate research data, falsify experimental findings, generate misleading results, invent scholarly references, conceal plagiarism, manipulate research images deceptively, or misrepresent the originality or reliability of scientific investigations.
Authors must not use generative AI to produce fictitious field observations, laboratory measurements, agricultural yield records, soil test results, survey responses, interview transcripts, livestock performance data, or statistical outputs and subsequently present them as genuine empirical findings.
AI-assisted paraphrasing must not be used to conceal the reproduction of previously published text or ideas without proper acknowledgement. AI-generated references must be verified against authentic scholarly publications, and authors must ensure that cited sources exist and accurately support the claims made in the manuscript.
These restrictions are consistent with the COPE Core Practices concerning Intellectual Property, Allegations of Misconduct, and Data and Reproducibility, which support editorial procedures addressing research fabrication, plagiarism, misleading publication practices, and unreliable scholarly records.
Authors must not use AI tools to generate fabricated peer-review reports, create false reviewer identities, manipulate editorial correspondence, or interfere with the integrity of the journal's manuscript evaluation process.

7. AI-Assisted Data Analysis and Research Reproducibility

Authors using artificial intelligence in data analysis, predictive modelling, classification, or other research procedures must provide sufficient methodological information to permit critical evaluation of the results.
Relevant information may include the AI model or algorithm, software version, training and validation data sources, data preprocessing procedures, model parameters, validation techniques, performance indicators, and known limitations. The level of detail must be appropriate to the study design, scientific objectives, and reproducibility requirements.
For agricultural applications, authors should explain the basis for evaluating AI model performance, including relevant measures such as accuracy, precision, recall, sensitivity, specificity, prediction error, or other scientifically appropriate indicators.
AI-generated predictions must be distinguished from direct empirical measurements. Authors must not represent simulated, predicted, synthetic, or automatically generated observations as independently collected field or laboratory data.
The journal's requirements are informed by the COPE Core Practice on Data and Reproducibility, which encourages clear reporting policies, appropriate data documentation, and transparency concerning methods used to generate research findings.

8. AI-Generated Images, Figures, and Visual Materials

Authors must disclose the use of artificial intelligence to generate or substantially modify images, graphs, diagrams, maps, scientific illustrations, and other visual materials included in a manuscript.
AI-generated or AI-enhanced visual materials must not misrepresent scientific observations, experimental conditions, biological structures, crop characteristics, field measurements, or research results.
Images presented as photographic or experimental evidence must accurately represent the underlying observations. Authors must not use generative AI to create fictitious evidence or introduce visual features that were absent from the original data.
Where AI-assisted image processing is scientifically necessary, authors must explain the processing method and retain the original data or images where ethically and legally appropriate. The editorial office may request original visual materials or supporting documentation to assess scientific reliability.
These procedures support the principles of reliable research reporting and investigation of potential falsification described in the COPE Core Practices on Allegations of Misconduct and Data and Reproducibility.

9. AI Use in Literature Reviews and Citation Management

Authors may use AI-assisted tools to support literature identification, bibliographic organisation, research mapping, or preliminary summarisation. However, AI-generated literature summaries must be checked against the original scholarly sources before being incorporated into a manuscript.
Authors must verify the accuracy of bibliographic details, including author names, publication titles, journal names, publication years, page numbers, and Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs). Fabricated references, inaccurate quotations, and unsupported claims must not appear in submitted manuscripts.
For systematic reviews or other structured evidence syntheses, authors must provide reproducible search strategies, transparent selection procedures, and appropriate methods for verifying AI-assisted screening or classification decisions.
AI-assisted literature processing does not replace the author's obligation to interpret original sources accurately and acknowledge prior research. The COPE principles concerning Intellectual Property and Data and Reproducibility provide the ethical basis for accurate attribution and transparent research reporting.

10. Confidentiality, Privacy, and Data Protection

Authors, reviewers, and editors must protect confidential research data, unpublished manuscripts, personal information, proprietary datasets, and other sensitive materials when using AI-assisted applications.
Confidential materials must not be uploaded to external AI services without appropriate authorisation, a lawful basis for processing, and safeguards suitable for the nature of the information involved. Where human participant data are involved, applicable informed-consent requirements and research ethics approvals must be respected.
The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers require reviewers to respect manuscript confidentiality and prohibit unauthorised use or disclosure of unpublished information obtained through peer review.
The journal expects all participants in the publication process to evaluate the confidentiality, data retention, privacy, and intellectual property implications of the AI systems they use.

11. Artificial Intelligence Use by Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers must conduct manuscript assessments independently and remain personally responsible for their scientific evaluations, comments, recommendations, and professional judgement.
Reviewers must not upload complete manuscripts, confidential reviewer correspondence, unpublished research data, or identifying author information to external generative AI systems unless JIIP has expressly authorised the relevant use and adequate confidentiality safeguards have been established.
Reviewers must not delegate the substantive evaluation of research originality, methodological validity, scientific significance, ethical compliance, or publication suitability entirely to an AI system.
These responsibilities are consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which establish requirements for confidentiality, independent evaluation, accountability, and responsible handling of unpublished material.
Where the editorial office permits a specific AI-assisted review activity, reviewers must disclose that use and remain responsible for verifying the accuracy, fairness, and scientific validity of the resulting assessment.

12. Artificial Intelligence Use by Editors

JIIP editors may use appropriately authorised digital tools to assist with administrative screening, manuscript formatting checks, similarity analysis, reference verification, and other supporting activities that improve editorial efficiency.
AI-generated recommendations must not independently determine manuscript acceptance, rejection, or retraction. Final editorial decisions must remain under the responsibility of qualified human editors who evaluate the manuscript's scientific merit, reviewer assessments, relevance, and compliance with publication ethics.
The COPE Discussion Document on Artificial Intelligence in Decision Making examines the risks of automated editorial decision making and emphasises transparency, accountability, fairness, and meaningful human oversight.
Editors must consider the possibility of algorithmic bias, inaccurate classification, incomplete data, and unreliable automated recommendations. AI-assisted screening must not result in discriminatory or arbitrary treatment of authors or submitted manuscripts.
Editors must also preserve manuscript confidentiality and comply with the journal's data protection, peer-review, and conflict-of-interest requirements when using automated systems.

13. AI Detection and Editorial Assessment

JIIP may use appropriate tools to identify potential concerns involving undisclosed AI-generated content, manipulated images, unreliable references, fabricated research findings, or other possible violations of publication ethics.
Automated AI detection results must not be treated as conclusive evidence of misconduct. Such tools may generate inaccurate classifications, and their findings must be assessed alongside manuscript content, methodological information, author explanations, and other relevant documentation.
The editorial team must evaluate suspected violations fairly and proportionately, following the COPE Core Practice on Allegations of Misconduct, which calls for clearly documented procedures when concerns are raised about submitted or published scholarly work.
Where evidence indicates inappropriate or undisclosed AI use, editors may request clarification, additional methodological information, original research records, or corrections to the manuscript. A determination of misconduct must rely on sufficiently reliable evidence rather than an automated detection score alone.

14. Violations and Editorial Corrective Actions

Suspected violations of this Artificial Intelligence Policy will be evaluated according to the nature of the concern, the available evidence, the author's explanation, and the potential effect on the reliability of the research or published scholarly record.
Potential violations include undisclosed substantive AI assistance, fabricated AI-generated references, falsified research data, misleading AI-generated images, unauthorised disclosure of confidential manuscripts, manipulation of peer review, and the use of AI to conceal plagiarism or other research misconduct.
Depending on the circumstances, editorial actions may include requests for clarification, revision, rejection, publication of a correction, an expression of concern, retraction, or referral to an appropriate research institution or competent authority.
These procedures are informed by the COPE Core Practices on Allegations of Misconduct and Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections, which support fair investigations and appropriate measures for protecting the integrity of the scholarly record.
Authors must be given an appropriate opportunity to respond to relevant concerns before final editorial action is taken. JIIP will document significant findings and decisions while maintaining confidentiality to the extent reasonably possible.

15. Author Accountability and Declaration

All authors remain fully responsible for manuscript content regardless of whether artificial intelligence tools were used during research or writing. This responsibility includes the accuracy of scientific claims, validity of analytical procedures, reliability of references, authenticity of research data, and compliance with applicable ethical requirements.
The corresponding author must ensure that all coauthors are informed of substantive AI use and have approved the relevant disclosure statements before manuscript submission.
The COPE Position Statement on Authorship and AI Tools provides the ethical foundation for maintaining human accountability when AI systems contribute to manuscript preparation.
Submission of a manuscript to JIIP constitutes the authors' confirmation that they have complied with the journal's AI disclosure requirements and have independently verified the scientific integrity of the submitted work.

16. Policy Review and Implementation

The Editor-in-Chief and editorial team of JIIP are responsible for implementing this Artificial Intelligence Policy consistently across the submission, peer-review, editorial decision-making, and publication processes.
The journal may periodically revise this policy to respond to developments in generative AI, automated scientific analysis, research integrity standards, scholarly publishing practices, and applicable legal or institutional requirements.
Any policy revision should preserve the fundamental principles of transparency, human accountability, research integrity, confidentiality, and fair editorial assessment, consistent with the COPE Discussion Document on AI in Decision Making and the COPE Core Practices.
By submitting or reviewing a manuscript for Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Pertanian, authors and reviewers agree to comply with the applicable provisions of this policy and uphold the ethical standards of responsible scholarly publication.