Generative AI Policy

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

Effective from: August 2026

CNAPC recognizes that generative artificial intelligence (Generative AI) and AI-assisted technologies may support certain activities in scholarly writing and publishing. However, these technologies must be used responsibly, transparently, and under meaningful human supervision.

This policy applies to authors, editors, editorial staff, and peer reviewers. It is intended to protect research integrity, confidentiality, intellectual property, transparency, and accountability throughout the publication process.

1. Use of Generative AI by Authors

Authors may use generative AI or AI-assisted technologies only as supporting tools during manuscript preparation. Permitted uses may include improving language, grammar, readability, translation, or the organization of content.

Generative AI must not replace the authors' intellectual contribution, scientific reasoning, critical analysis, interpretation of results, or responsibility for the submitted work.

Authors are prohibited from using generative AI to:

fabricate, alter, or manipulate research data;
generate false or misleading research results;
create fictitious, inaccurate, or unverifiable references;
manipulate images, figures, tables, or research documentation;
conceal plagiarism or inappropriate text reproduction;
generate conclusions that have not been verified by the authors; or
replace the authors' scientific analysis and critical judgment.

Authors must carefully review and verify all AI-generated output. They remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, validity, citations, interpretation, and integrity of the entire manuscript.

AI and Authorship

Generative AI tools, chatbots, and large language models cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. AI systems cannot take responsibility for a published work, approve the final manuscript, declare conflicts of interest, transfer copyright, or respond to questions concerning research integrity.

Only individuals who fulfil the journal's authorship criteria may be listed as authors.

Disclosure of AI Use by Authors

Authors who use generative AI or AI-assisted technologies must disclose their use transparently. The disclosure must identify:

the name and version of the AI tool;
the purpose for which the tool was used;
the section or content affected by its use; and
the verification and editing performed by the authors.

The disclosure must be placed in a separate section before the References under the heading Declaration of Generative AI Use.

Declaration of Generative AI Use: During the preparation of this manuscript, the author(s) used [name and version of the AI tool] for [specific purpose]. The author(s) subsequently reviewed, verified, and edited the generated output and take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and final content of the manuscript.

If generative AI was not used, authors may include the following statement:

Declaration of Generative AI Use: The author(s) declare that no generative artificial intelligence tools were used in the preparation, writing, analysis, or production of this manuscript.

The use of conventional spelling checkers, basic grammar-checking software, and reference-management software without generative functions does not require disclosure.

AI as Part of the Research Method

When AI is used as part of the research method, including data analysis, classification, prediction, modelling, image processing, or synthetic data generation, authors must describe its use comprehensively in the Methods section.

The description should include the name and version of the model, data source, parameters, prompts or procedures where relevant, validation method, human oversight, reproducibility information, and known limitations.

2. Use of Generative AI by Editors and Editorial Staff

Editors and editorial staff must treat submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, author identities, research data, and editorial communications as confidential materials.

Editors and editorial staff are prohibited from uploading an unpublished manuscript or any part of it to publicly accessible generative AI systems. This prohibition includes tables, figures, supplementary files, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and personally identifiable information.

Generative AI must not be used by editors to:

determine whether a manuscript should be accepted or rejected;
replace the editor's evaluation of scientific quality and originality;
make final judgments concerning research ethics or misconduct;
generate substantive editorial decisions without human verification;
identify authors or reviewers in an anonymous review process; or
make decisions that may affect the rights or reputation of an author.

The editorial team may use secure and journal-approved technologies for limited administrative purposes, such as similarity checking, metadata validation, manuscript formatting checks, or workflow management. Such tools must provide adequate confidentiality and data-protection safeguards.

Editorial Disclosure of AI Use

If an AI-assisted system is materially used in processing a submission, the journal or editor must disclose its use to the affected authors. The disclosure should explain the name or type of technology used, its purpose, and the extent of human supervision.

CNAPC does not use publicly accessible generative AI systems to make editorial decisions. Editors remain fully responsible and accountable for all actions and decisions made during the editorial process.

3. Use of Generative AI by Peer Reviewers

Submitted manuscripts are confidential and privileged documents. Peer reviewers must not upload, copy, reproduce, or submit any part of a manuscript to a publicly accessible generative AI system.

This prohibition applies to:

the complete manuscript or any part of its text;
abstracts, tables, figures, images, and supplementary files;
research data and participant information;
review forms and reviewer reports;
author and reviewer identities; and
confidential editorial correspondence.

Peer reviewers must not use generative AI to:

summarize or evaluate a confidential manuscript;
assess novelty, methodology, results, or scientific quality;
generate substantive peer-review comments;
recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection;
identify authors participating in anonymous peer review; or
replace the reviewer's expertise, reasoning, and independent judgment.

Peer-review reports must represent the reviewer's own evaluation and professional judgment. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, fairness, integrity, and confidentiality of their reports.

Any unauthorized use of generative AI during peer review may be treated as a breach of confidentiality and publication ethics. The journal may discontinue the review, reject the review report, and remove the reviewer from its reviewer database.

4. Human Editorial Decision-Making

All editorial decisions at CNAPC are made by qualified human editors. Decisions concerning initial screening, reviewer selection, revision, acceptance, rejection, correction, expression of concern, or retraction shall not be delegated to an AI system.

AI-assisted technologies may support limited administrative activities, but they cannot replace human expertise, ethical responsibility, or editorial accountability. The Editor-in-Chief or assigned human editor retains final authority over every editorial decision.

5. AI-Detection Tools

AI-detection results must not be treated as conclusive evidence that an author has violated this policy. Such systems may produce inaccurate or biased results.

When inappropriate or undisclosed AI use is suspected, the editor must conduct a human-led assessment and give the author an opportunity to provide an explanation, disclosure, manuscript history, data, or other supporting evidence.

6. Violations and Editorial Action

Failure to disclose the use of generative AI may result in a request for clarification, correction, revision, or additional documentation.

Serious violations, including fabricated data, manipulated images, fictitious references, plagiarism, misleading AI-generated content, or breaches of manuscript confidentiality, may result in:

suspension of the editorial process;
rejection of the manuscript;
correction or retraction of a published article;
removal of a reviewer from the reviewer database;
notification to the authors' or reviewers' institution; or
other actions consistent with the journal's publication-ethics policy.

All suspected violations shall be examined fairly, transparently, and by human editors. Editorial actions will be proportionate to the nature and severity of the violation.