Ethical Guideline on the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Journal Policy

Ethical Guideline on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

in Scientific Research and Publication Activities in Higher Education

The use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in higher education offers significant opportunities while also entailing serious ethical and academic risks. This guideline has been prepared to evaluate the impact of rapidly developing GAI technologies on scientific research and publication processes, to identify potential risks, and to develop preventive principles against such risks.

Within this framework, the guideline addresses:

  • The ethical dimension of using generative artificial intelligence in scientific research and publications,
  • The fundamental ethical values that must be observed in the use of generative artificial intelligence,
  • The major risks and ethical issues that may arise from the use of generative artificial intelligence,
  • Recommendations for the responsible use of generative artificial intelligence systems.

Access to the guideline:

 

A) Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) for Authors

1. Purpose and Principle

Tefsiriyat Journal adheres to the principles of scientific integrity, originality, and academic responsibility. The use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) tools in scientific research and publication processes is acceptable provided that it is human-centered, transparent, responsible, and within ethical boundaries. GAI is not regarded as an agent replacing the researcher, but as a limited, controllable, and auxiliary tool.

2. Permitted Uses

Provided that final responsibility rests with the author, limited use of GAI may be permitted in the following areas:

  • Grammar, spelling, and stylistic corrections,
  • Translation (subject to final review and verification),
  • Preliminary literature searches (the accuracy of sources must be verified by the author),
  • Reference formatting and technical layout,
  • Data labeling and technical classification (subject to neutrality checks).

3. Prohibited Uses

The following practices constitute ethical violations and result in the rejection of the manuscript:

  • Having the entire manuscript or substantial parts written by GAI,
  • Delegating hypothesis development, interpretation, discussion, or conclusion generation to GAI,
  • Presenting GAI as an author, co-author, or implicit intellectual agent,
  • Using fabricated or unverified references generated by GAI,
  • Producing survey or field data through GAI instead of real participants.

4. Transparency and Disclosure Requirement

In studies where GAI is used, authors must:

  • Clearly disclose the use of GAI in the methodology section or in a footnote,
  • Specify the name, version, and purpose of the tool used,
  • Prefer clear and restrictive statements such as:
    “GAI was used solely for language and stylistic editing in this study.”

Undisclosed use of GAI is considered an ethical violation.

5. Responsibility and Accountability

  • The scientific accuracy, neutrality, and consistency of GAI outputs are entirely the responsibility of the author.
  • Errors, bias, or “hallucinations” produced by GAI do not exempt the author from responsibility.
  • Editors and reviewers may request clarification or revisions regarding GAI use when deemed necessary.

6. Sanctions

In the event of non-compliance with this policy:

  • The manuscript may be rejected regardless of the stage of the peer-review process,
  • A retraction process may be initiated for published works,
  • The matter may be reported to relevant institutions when necessary.

7. Updates

This policy is periodically updated in line with developments in GAI technologies and new regulations issued by the Council of Higher Education (YÖK).

 

B) Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) for Reviewers

1. Principle

The peer-review process is based on independent academic judgment, confidentiality, and ethical responsibility. GAI tools cannot assume the reviewer’s scientific evaluation responsibility; they may only be used as limited and auxiliary tools.

2. Permitted Uses

Reviewers may make limited use of GAI for the following purposes:

  • Improving the language and expression of review reports,
  • Checking formal and structural consistency of the text,
  • Receiving general terminology and phrasing suggestions.

GAI outputs must be verified through the reviewer’s own academic judgment.

3. Prohibited Uses

The following practices constitute ethical violations:

  • Having the entire review report or substantial parts generated by GAI,
  • Delegating scientific evaluation, critique, decision-making, or recommendations to GAI,
  • Using GAI as a decision-maker instead of reviewer judgment,
  • Making claims or allegations based on GAI outputs without source verification.

4. Confidentiality and Data Security

Reviewers may not upload manuscript texts, supplementary materials, author information, or internal correspondence to any GAI platform. Even anonymized content must not be shared with third-party systems.

5. Transparency and Responsibility

Reviewers assume full ethical and scientific responsibility arising from the use of GAI. Editors may request explanations regarding GAI use when deemed necessary.

6. Editorial Authority and Sanctions

In cases of non-compliance with this policy:

  • Reviewer duties may be terminated,
  • Repeated violations may result in removal from the journal’s reviewer pool.

 

C) Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) for Editors

1. Fundamental Principle

Editorial activity is an essential academic duty requiring scientific judgment, ethical responsibility, impartiality, and accountability. GAI cannot assume editorial decision-making authority; it may only serve as a limited and supportive tool.

2. Permitted Uses

Editors may use GAI at a supportive level for:

  • Formal and technical checks during the preliminary review process,
  • Reviewing the language and tone of editorial correspondence,
  • Enhancing linguistic clarity of publication policies and guidelines,
  • Preliminary assessment of similarity, consistency, and formatting.

3. Prohibited Uses

The following practices are considered ethical violations:

  • Delegating acceptance, rejection, or revision decisions to GAI,
  • Allowing GAI to guide reviewer selection or the evaluation of reviewer reports,
  • Uploading manuscript content, reviewer reports, or author information to GAI systems,
  • Positioning GAI as an editor, reviewer, or academic authority.

4. Confidentiality and Data Security

Editors may not share manuscript contents, reviewer reports, or identity information with any GAI platform. Even anonymized academic content must not be transferred to third-party GAI systems.

5. Transparency and Responsibility

The use of GAI does not eliminate the editor’s ethical or legal responsibility. Editors are personally responsible for verifying the accuracy and appropriateness of GAI outputs.

6. Editorial Authority and Ethical Oversight

Editors are responsible for monitoring authors’ and reviewers’ use of GAI within the framework of this policy. In cases of unethical use, correction, rejection, or retraction procedures may be initiated.

7. Sanctions

Editorial practices that violate this policy may result in:

  • Restriction of editorial duties and authorities,
  • Withdrawal from editorial positions when necessary.

8. Updates

This policy is regularly updated in line with YÖK regulations and developments in GAI technologies.