Policy on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-Assisted Technologies

Transparency • Human Accountability • Responsible Use

Salus Publica: Journal of Community Service recognizes that artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies can support research and scholarly communication. However, their use must not replace human intellectual responsibility, scholarly judgment, research integrity, or accountability. The journal therefore requires transparent, responsible, and appropriately supervised use of such technologies.

Use of AI by Authors

Authors may use AI and AI-assisted technologies where appropriate, provided that their use complies with principles of research integrity, transparency, confidentiality, intellectual property, data protection, and applicable ethical standards.

Authors remain fully responsible for all content submitted to and published by the journal, including content developed or modified with the assistance of AI technologies.

• Authors must verify the accuracy, validity, originality, and appropriateness of AI-assisted output.
• Authors must verify references, quotations, data, statistical results, factual statements, and other information generated or suggested by AI systems.
• Authors must ensure that AI-assisted content does not introduce fabricated information, false references, plagiarism, bias, misleading claims, or other research-integrity problems.
• Authors remain responsible for obtaining any necessary ethical approval, consent, permission, or authorization associated with their research.
• Confidential, sensitive, personal, proprietary, or unpublished information should not be entered into external AI systems where doing so could violate confidentiality, privacy, ethical, contractual, or legal obligations.

Disclosure of Generative AI Use

Authors must disclose substantive use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in the preparation of a manuscript when such technologies have contributed beyond routine spelling, grammar correction, language editing, or formatting.

Where disclosure is required, authors should identify the AI tool or service used and briefly explain how it was used and which part of the research or manuscript it supported.

Depending on the nature of the use, the disclosure may be provided in the Methods, Acknowledgment, or a dedicated AI Use Disclosure Statement.

During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [name of AI tool/service] for [specific purpose]. The authors reviewed and verified the resulting content and take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and final content of the manuscript.

AI Cannot Be an Author

AI systems, large language models, chatbots, and other automated tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. Authorship requires responsibilities and accountability that can only be attributed to human contributors. The human authors remain accountable for the entire submitted and published work.

AI-Generated Output as a Source

Generative AI must not be cited as an authoritative scholarly source. Authors are responsible for locating, reading, and citing the original and appropriate scholarly sources supporting claims made in the manuscript. References suggested by AI systems must be independently verified before they are included in the manuscript.

AI-Generated or AI-Assisted Data, Images, and Analyses

When AI technologies form part of the research methodology, including data processing, classification, prediction, analysis, simulation, image processing, or other substantive research procedures, their use must be described with sufficient detail to permit appropriate scholarly evaluation.

Authors must ensure that AI-generated or AI-assisted figures, images, tables, datasets, and other research materials comply with applicable ethical, copyright, licensing, privacy, and research integrity requirements.

AI-Generated Content Screening

The journal may use appropriate automated tools, including Turnitin AI Writing Detection, as part of its editorial screening procedures.

As an internal editorial screening guideline, manuscripts showing an AI-writing indicator above 15% may receive additional editorial assessment and authors may be asked to provide clarification, disclose relevant AI use, or revise the manuscript where appropriate.

An AI-detection percentage is not treated as conclusive evidence of AI use or research misconduct. Automated detection results are interpreted cautiously and are subject to human editorial review. Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript as a whole, the nature and transparency of AI use, scholarly quality, originality, research integrity, and compliance with journal policies.

The 15% indicator is an internal screening guideline, not an automatic acceptance or rejection threshold. A manuscript below this indicator may still require investigation if inappropriate or undisclosed AI use is identified, while a manuscript above the indicator will not be automatically considered misconduct solely on the basis of an automated detection result.

Use of Generative AI by Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and associated review materials. Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts, manuscript extracts, unpublished data, figures, or other protected material to external generative AI systems.

Generative AI must not be used to create or substitute for the reviewer's scholarly assessment. Review reports must reflect the reviewer's own expertise, critical evaluation, and judgment. Any permitted use for limited editing or language refinement must not compromise confidentiality or alter the substance of the review.

Use of Generative AI by Editors

Editors must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and must not upload confidential manuscript content or unpublished research material to external generative AI systems.

Generative AI must not replace editorial judgment or be used to create substantive editorial assessments or publication decisions. Decisions regarding manuscripts remain the responsibility of human editors and must be based on scholarly merit, journal scope, research integrity, ethical compliance, and the journal's double-blind peer-review process.

Journal Use of Automated Tools

Automated tools may be used by the journal to support routine editorial and integrity checks, such as similarity screening, AI-writing indicators, metadata processing, or other administrative tasks. Such tools support rather than replace human editorial judgment. Where automated systems identify potential integrity concerns, the results are reviewed by an editor or other authorized journal personnel before editorial action is taken.

Undisclosed or Inappropriate AI Use

If the journal identifies potentially inappropriate or undisclosed use of AI or AI-assisted technologies, the Editorial Office may request an explanation, supporting information, disclosure, or manuscript revision.

Serious cases involving fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, fabricated references, manipulation, confidentiality breaches, misrepresentation, or other research-integrity concerns may result in rejection or appropriate post-publication action in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and post-publication policies.