Journal of Applied Health Sciences (JAHS)

  1. Scope and Purpose of this Policy

The Journal of Applied Health Sciences (JAHS) acknowledges the rapid evolution of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), large language models (LLMs), and their increasing use in academic work.

This policy:

  • Defines permitted and prohibited uses of GenAI for authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff.
  • Aims to protect research integrity, originality, confidentiality, and patient safety.
  • Is aligned with international standards (COPE, ICMJE, WAME, OASPA, and major indexers’ guidance).

This policy applies to all manuscript types submitted to JAHS (original research, reviews, case reports, qualitative studies, methodological papers, editorials, letters, etc.).

  1. Definitions

For this policy:

  • Generative AI (GenAI) – any computational system capable of generating new text, images, code, audio, or other content based on training data (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, image generators, code copilots).
  • Large Language Model (LLM) – AI models trained on large text corpora to predict and generate human-like text.
  • AI tool / AI system – any software that uses machine learning or AI for content generation, summarisation, translation, code generation, or data manipulation.
  • Assistive use – AI used in limited, technical ways (e.g., grammar, spelling, language polishing) without altering the underlying scientific content.
  • Substantive use – AI used to generate or modify the scientific content, reasoning, data interpretation, or conclusions.
  1. Fundamental Principles
  1. No AI authorship
    • GenAI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors.
    • Only human persons can meet authorship criteria and assume responsibility.
  2. Human accountability
    • Human authors remain fully responsible for:
      • Originality and correctness of the manuscript;
      • The integrity of data, analyses, and interpretations;
      • Compliance with ethical and legal norms.
  3. Transparency and disclosure
    • Any use of GenAI in manuscript preparation must be declared.
    • Undisclosed AI use is considered a breach of transparency.
  4. Protection of confidentiality and privacy
    • Confidential materials (unpublished manuscripts, peer reviews, patient data) must not be uploaded to AI tools that store, reuse, or train on user content.
  5. Integrity of the scientific record
    • GenAI must never be used to fabricate data, distort results, or misrepresent evidence.
  1. Acceptable Uses of GenAI by Authors

Authors may use GenAI in a strictly assistive, non-substantive way. Examples include:

3.1 Language and style editing

  • Grammar, spelling, and punctuation correction.
  • Improving fluency and readability of sentences written by the authors.
  • Adjusting style to academic tone (without adding new content).

Example (allowed):

The authors wrote the entire Discussion, then used an AI tool to correct grammar and improve clarity, and carefully reviewed the output.

3.2 Technical and formal editing

  • Formatting references into specific citation styles (e.g., Vancouver).
  • Reformatting tables (without altering data).
  • Generating cover letters based on the author’s own text.

3.3 Code and syntax support

  • Debugging programming syntax (R, Python, SPSS scripts).
  • Translating code comments from one language to another.
  • Clarifying error messages in statistical software.

Important: AI must not be used to generate new statistical analyses or create data.

3.4 Limited summarisation

  • Summarising a section already written by the authors, e.g., producing a structured abstract from an existing manuscript, provided the authors:
    • Carefully verify fidelity to the original;
    • Adjust the summary as needed.
  1. Prohibited Uses of GenAI by Authors

The following practices are strictly prohibited and considered serious violations of JAHS ethics:

4.1 AI-generated scientific content

  • Drafting entire sections of the manuscript (e.g., Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) using AI, even if later edited by humans.
  • Letting AI “write” the literature review or conceptual framework.
  • Asking AI for “a full article” on a given dataset or topic.

4.2 Data fabrication and falsification

  • Generating synthetic data and presenting it as real observations.
  • Using AI to “fill in” missing data.
  • AI-generated images (e.g., histology, radiology, electrophoresis gels) presented as actual experimental results.

4.3 Manipulation of statistical analyses

  • Asking AI to conduct statistical analyses directly on sensitive datasets.
  • Using AI to produce p-values, confidence intervals, or regression outputs instead of validated statistical software.
  • Allowing AI to select statistical tests without human oversight.

4.4 AI-created references and literature

  • Inserting references suggested by AI without checking their existence, accuracy, or relevance.
  • Using AI-generated citations that are fabricated, misattributed, or incomplete.

4.5 Upload of confidential or sensitive content

  • Uploading full manuscripts (drafts or submitted) to publicly accessible AI tools.
  • Uploading raw patient data, medical images, or identifiable information.
  • Uploading reviewer reports, editorial decisions, or internal communications.

4.6 Plagiarism via AI paraphrasing

  • Using AI to paraphrase another author’s work to evade plagiarism detection.
  • Using AI to “rewrite” large parts of existing articles and presenting them as original.

4.7 AI as “ghostwriter.”

  • Allowing AI to generate core arguments, structure, or message of the article.
  • Relying on AI to write the article with only minor human edits.
  1. Borderline Cases and Clarifications

To help authors, JAHS provides the following clarifications:

  • Allowed: “We wrote the manuscript ourselves and used an AI tool to correct English grammar in the final draft.”
  • Not allowed: “We asked an AI chatbot to write the Discussion based on a brief description of the results.”
  • Allowed: “AI suggested some synonyms or rephrasing for unclear sentences, and we adjusted them ourselves.”
  • Not allowed: “We pasted our abstract and asked the AI to create the full article.”
  • Allowed: “We used an AI-based reference manager plugin that formats citations into Vancouver style, using references we manually selected.”
  • Not allowed: “We accepted all references suggested by AI without verifying if they exist.”
  1. Disclosure Obligations for Authors

6.1 Mandatory disclosure statement

If GenAI was used in any way (even just for grammar), the manuscript must contain a clear statement such as:

Use of Generative AI:
“The authors used [Tool name, provider, version] for [grammar editing/language polishing/reference formatting] in parts of this manuscript. All content, data, and conclusions were generated and verified by the authors, who accept full responsibility for the work.”

If no GenAI tools were used:

“The authors declare that they did not use generative artificial intelligence tools in the writing or analysis of this manuscript.”

6.2 Location of the disclosure

The disclosure should be placed in:

  • the Methods section or
  • a separate Acknowledgments subsection (e.g., “AI and Technical Assistance”).

Failure to include a disclosure when AI has been used may constitute misrepresentation or a deceptive practice.

  1. Implementation in the Submission and Review Process

JAHS will implement the following measures:

  1. Author Declaration at Submission
    • The submission system will ask:

“Have you used any generative AI tools in preparing this manuscript?”

      • YES / NO.
    • If YES, the author must provide the disclosure text.
  2. Editorial Triage
    • Editors may request clarification if AI use appears inconsistent with writing style, complexity, or other indicators.
  3. AI-Detection Tools
    • JAHS reserves the right to use AI-detection and forensic tools to identify potential AI-generated content, data irregularities, or fabricated references.
  4. Request for Original Materials
    • Editors may ask authors to provide:
      • Original draft versions;
      • Raw data;
      • Analysis scripts;
      • Logs or descriptions of AI prompts (when relevant).
  1. Special Considerations by Article Type

8.1 Original Research Articles

  • AI must not contribute to:
    • Study design decisions;
    • Data analysis;
    • Interpretation of results.
  • AI may only assist with language editing.

8.2 Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

  • AI must not be used to replace:
    • Systematic search strategies;
    • Screening and selection of studies;
    • Data extraction or risk-of-bias assessment.
  • AI may assist in:
    • Summarising long texts after human extraction;
    • Formatting tables or PRISMA flow diagrams (with human verification).

8.3 Case Reports and Clinical Images

  • AI-generated or AI-modified clinical images must not be used unless explicitly labelled and ethically justified.
  • Images of patients must never be processed through external AI tools that may store data, unless:
    • fully anonymised, and
    • compatible with ethical and legal requirements, and
    • explicitly approved by an ethics committee (when applicable).

8.4 Qualitative Research

  • AI must not:
    • Transcribe interviews if this violates confidentiality agreements or data protection laws;
    • “Summarise” transcripts without careful human validation;
    • Generate themes or codes autonomously.

Qualitative analysis must remain a human interpretative process.

  1. Use of GenAI by Reviewers

Reviewers must respect:

  • Confidentiality of manuscripts, and
  • Intellectual property of authors.

9.1 Prohibited uses by reviewers

Reviewers must not:

  • Upload the manuscript (or substantial parts) into external AI tools.
  • Ask AI to “write the review” for them.
  • Ask AI to summarise confidential sections.
  • Use AI to assess novelty, correctness, or significance of scientific content.

9.2 Limited acceptable uses by reviewers

Reviewers may:

  • Use AI for grammar or style polishing of their own review text, without inserting confidential manuscript content in prompts.
  • Use AI to check general definitions or background (not copied from manuscript).
  1. Use of GenAI by Editors and Editorial Staff

Editors must:

  • Maintain author and reviewer confidentiality.
  • Base decisions on human scientific judgment.

10.1 Prohibited uses

Editors and editorial staff must not:

  • Upload full manuscripts to AI tools for “evaluation” or “summarisation”.
  • Ask AI to decide on acceptance or rejection.
  • Allow AI to rewrite decision letters containing confidential content.

10.2 Limited acceptable uses

They may:

  • Use AI for:
    • Drafting generic parts of correspondence (e.g., reminder emails) without including confidential details;
    • Grammar and style correction in decision letters;
    • General workflow automation that does not process manuscript content.
  1. Data Protection and GDPR Compliance
  • Any use of AI tools must be compatible with data protection regulations (including GDPR for EU-based authors).
  • Authors, reviewers, and editors must:
    • Avoid exposing personal data to AI tools;
    • Ensure that any AI service used does not store or reuse uploaded content without explicit consent.
  1. Investigation of Suspected Misuse of AI

If editors, reviewers, or readers suspect inappropriate use of AI:

  1. Initial Assessment
    • The Editor-in-Chief or designated ethics editor will examine the concern and supporting evidence.
  2. Communication with Authors
    • Authors may be asked to provide:
      • Original drafts;
      • Data;
      • Description of AI use;
      • Ethical approvals.
  3. Decision and Actions
    • Possible outcomes:
      • No issue found → manuscript proceeds.
      • Minor issue → request corrections and explicit disclosure.
      • Major issue → rejection, or retraction if already published; notification of institution or funders where appropriate.
  4. Appeals
    • Authors may appeal decisions by providing additional explanations. An independent editor will review appeals.
  1. Sanctions and Consequences

Violations of this policy may result in:

  • Manuscript rejection or withdrawal from review;
  • Retraction of a published article;
  • Publication of an Expression of Concern;
  • Banning of the author from submitting to JAHS for a defined period;
  • Notification to academic institutions, employers, or funding bodies;
  • Reporting to relevant ethical oversight bodies where required.
  1. Policy Review and Updates

This policy will be:

  • Reviewed periodically in light of technological developments, evolving norms, and guidance from COPE, ICMJE, and indexing services;
  • Updated as necessary. The version and date of the last revision will be indicated at the top of the policy.
  1. Contact

Questions regarding this policy, or doubts about specific AI-related practices, may be directed to:

Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Applied Health Sciences (JAHS)