AI Policy

LETS: Journal of Linguistics and English Teaching Studies recognizes the increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies in scholarly research and publishing. The Journal supports the responsible and transparent use of AI while maintaining the principles of research integrity, academic responsibility, originality, confidentiality, transparency, and human scholarly judgment.

This policy applies to authors, reviewers, and editors involved in the publication process. It is informed by the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other relevant standards of responsible scholarly publishing.

1. Definition of Artificial Intelligence

For the purposes of this policy, Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to computer-based systems capable of generating, modifying, analyzing, translating, or interpreting text, images, data, or code. This includes, but is not limited to, generative AI systems, large language models (LLMs), grammar and language-editing tools, machine translation systems, AI-assisted data-analysis tools, and image-generation systems.

2. General Principles

The use of AI in scholarly publishing should follow these principles:

1. Human accountability: AI systems cannot take responsibility for scholarly work. Authors, reviewers, and editors remain responsible for their respective contributions and decisions.
2. Transparency: Meaningful use of generative AI should be appropriately disclosed.
3. Accuracy and integrity: AI-assisted content must be critically reviewed and verified by humans.
4. Confidentiality: Confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, personal information, and peer-review materials must be protected from inappropriate use of AI tools.
5. Human judgment: AI may support scholarly, reviewing, or editorial activities but must not replace human intellectual, evaluative, or editorial judgment.

3. Use of AI by Authors

3.1 Permitted Uses

Authors may use AI-assisted tools for limited supportive purposes in manuscript preparation, provided that the use of AI does not replace the authors' intellectual contribution, scholarly judgment, or responsibility for the work.

Such uses may include:

• correcting spelling, grammar, punctuation, and language errors;
• improving language clarity and readability;
• assisting with translation, provided that the authors carefully review the translated content;
• assisting with formatting and other non-substantive aspects of manuscript preparation; and
• providing limited assistance with data processing, coding, or visualization when the authors independently verify the outputs and remain responsible for the research process and results.

The use of AI for these purposes does not transfer responsibility for the manuscript to the AI system. Authors remain responsible for checking the accuracy and appropriateness of all AI-assisted content.

3.2 AI Use in Research

AI may be used as part of a research method when it is relevant to the research design or research process. Where AI plays a meaningful role in the research, its use should be described transparently in the appropriate section of the manuscript.

Authors should provide sufficient information about the AI tool and its role in the research to enable readers to understand how it contributed to the study.

AI-generated or AI-assisted data, analysis, coding, visualization, or interpretation must be independently checked by the authors. Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, validity, and integrity of the research findings.

3.3 Unacceptable Uses

Authors must not use AI tools to:

• fabricate, falsify, manipulate, or invent research data or findings;
• create fictitious, fabricated, or unverifiable references or citations;
• misrepresent AI-generated material as original human intellectual work;
• replace the authors' substantive scholarly reasoning, critical analysis, interpretation, or judgment;
• use AI-generated content without appropriate human review and verification; or
• conceal a meaningful use of generative AI where disclosure is required.

The use of AI does not exempt authors from requirements relating to plagiarism, copyright, research integrity, authorship, or other forms of academic and publication misconduct.

3.4 Authorship

AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors.

Authorship is reserved for individuals who have made appropriate intellectual contributions to the work and who are able to take responsibility for their contribution and the published article.

All authors remain responsible for the content of the manuscript, including content produced or modified with AI assistance.

4. Disclosure of AI Use by Authors

Authors should disclose the use of generative AI when it has made a meaningful contribution to the preparation of the manuscript or the research.

The disclosure should identify the AI tool used and briefly describe its purpose. For example:

“The authors used [name of AI tool] to assist with language editing and improving the clarity of the manuscript. The authors reviewed and verified all AI-assisted content and take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, interpretation, and conclusions of the article.”

Where AI is used as part of the research methodology, the use should instead be described in the Methods or other appropriate section of the manuscript.

Routine use of basic spelling or grammar-checking functions that does not involve generative AI may not require a separate disclosure.

Authors are responsible for providing an accurate description of their use of AI when disclosure is required.

5. Use of AI by Reviewers

Peer review is a confidential, independent, and human-led scholarly process. Reviewers must follow the Journal's confidentiality requirements and remain responsible for their review.

5.1 Limited Use of AI

Reviewers may use AI tools for limited supportive purposes, such as language assistance in preparing their own review comments, provided that confidential manuscript content or peer-review materials are not entered into the AI system and the use does not compromise the confidentiality or integrity of the review process.

5.2 Prohibited Uses

Reviewers must not:

• upload manuscripts, substantial portions of manuscripts, unpublished data, reviewer reports, or other confidential peer-review materials to public or unsecured AI systems;
• use AI to generate a complete peer-review report;
• delegate the substantive assessment of a manuscript to an AI system;
• rely on AI-generated judgments as the basis for a recommendation to accept, revise, or reject a manuscript;
• use confidential information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage; or
• disclose or share the manuscript with another person or system without the permission of the Journal.

Reviewers remain responsible for ensuring that their reports are accurate, objective, constructive, respectful, and based on their own scholarly assessment. COPE similarly emphasizes reviewer confidentiality, independence, objectivity, and responsibility during peer review.

5.3 Ethical Concerns

If reviewers identify possible research or publication misconduct, they should inform the editor confidentially rather than attempting to investigate the matter independently. This is consistent with COPE's guidance for peer reviewers.

6. Use of AI by Editors

Editors may use AI-assisted technologies for appropriate administrative or technical support, provided that confidentiality, editorial independence, and human oversight are maintained.

6.1 Permitted Uses

Editors may use AI tools for limited purposes such as:

• administrative and workflow assistance;
• language or formatting checks;
• preliminary technical screening; and
• other appropriate support functions that do not replace editorial judgment.

6.2 Editorial Responsibility

Editors must not delegate to AI systems:

• decisions concerning acceptance or rejection;
• substantive assessment of manuscripts;
• ethical or misconduct determinations;
• final decisions concerning peer review;
• decisions concerning authorship disputes; or
• other decisions requiring scholarly or ethical judgment.

Final editorial decisions must remain the responsibility of qualified human editors.

Editors should also ensure that AI-assisted editorial processes do not compromise the confidentiality of manuscripts, reviewer identities, author information, editorial correspondence, or other confidential materials.

This reflects COPE's broader principle that editors are responsible for maintaining appropriate editorial processes, providing clear guidance, addressing ethical concerns, and ensuring appropriate human oversight.

7. Accuracy, Integrity, and Verification

Anyone using AI in connection with a manuscript or the publication process must critically evaluate its output.

Particular attention should be given to:

• factual inaccuracies;
• fabricated or incorrect references and citations;
• unsupported claims;
• biased or misleading interpretations;
• inappropriate attribution of ideas;
• plagiarism or copyright concerns; and
• inconsistencies between AI-assisted content and the underlying research.

AI-generated output should not be treated as authoritative or accurate merely because it is produced by an AI system.

8. AI Detection and Editorial Assessment

The Journal may use AI-assisted screening or detection tools as part of its editorial processes.

However, AI-detection results will not be treated as definitive evidence of inappropriate AI use or academic misconduct.

An AI-detection result may be considered together with other relevant information and evidence. Editorial decisions will primarily consider the manuscript's:

• originality;
• scholarly contribution;
• methodological rigor;
• research and publication integrity;
• ethical compliance; and
• overall academic quality.

Where concerns arise regarding possible inappropriate or undisclosed AI use, the Journal may request clarification or additional information from the authors before making an editorial decision.

The Journal does not establish a fixed AI-detection percentage as an automatic threshold for acceptance or rejection.

9. Ethical Compliance and Possible Actions

Suspected inappropriate or unethical use of AI will be assessed case by case, taking into account the nature, extent, intent, and potential consequences of the use.

Where appropriate, the Journal may:

• request clarification or additional information;
• request revision or correction of the manuscript;
• reject a manuscript;
• publish a correction or retraction where appropriate;
• notify the author's affiliated institution or another relevant authority; and/or
• take other actions consistent with the Journal's publication-ethics procedures and relevant COPE guidance.

The Journal will not assume that every instance of undisclosed AI use constitutes the same level of misconduct. The response will depend on the circumstances and seriousness of the concern.

10. Confidentiality and Data Protection

Authors, reviewers, and editors must take reasonable steps to protect confidential information when using AI-assisted tools.

In particular:

• unpublished manuscripts should not be uploaded to public or unsecured AI systems;
• confidential peer-review materials should not be entered into AI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured;
• unpublished research data and personal or sensitive information should not be submitted to AI tools without appropriate authorization and safeguards; and
• information obtained through the publication process must not be used for purposes unrelated to that process.

Reviewers and editors have a particular responsibility to protect the confidentiality of peer-review materials. This is consistent with COPE's ethical guidance for peer reviewers.

11. Policy Review

AI technologies and their applications in scholarly publishing continue to evolve. LETS: Journal of Linguistics and English Teaching Studies will periodically review and update this policy to reflect developments in AI technology, responsible research practices, and recognized standards of publication ethics.

This policy is informed by COPE principles and guidance and may be revised as relevant recommendations and standards concerning AI-assisted scholarly publishing develop.