Authors may use AI or AI-assisted technologies where appropriate, provided that such use does not replace the authors' intellectual responsibility for the research, analysis, interpretation, and conclusions presented in the manuscript.

Authors are responsible for reviewing and verifying all AI-assisted outputs before submission, including factual statements, calculations, analyses, references, citations, figures, tables, code, and other generated material.

The use of an AI tool does not transfer responsibility for errors, bias, fabricated information, inappropriate citations, copyright concerns, or other problems from the authors to the technology provider.

Authors should disclose the use of generative AI or similar automated content-generation tools when those tools materially contributed to the preparation of the manuscript.

The disclosure should identify, where relevant:

Straightforward spelling correction, grammar correction, formatting, and conventional language editing that do not generate substantive scholarly content generally do not require a detailed AI disclosure.

AI systems, large language models, chatbots, software, and other automated tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. They cannot take responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of a scholarly work, approve a submitted manuscript, or respond to questions concerning research accountability.

Generative AI should not be cited as an authoritative scholarly source. Authors should identify and cite the original, verifiable scholarly or primary sources that support statements made in the manuscript.

When an AI model, machine-learning system, algorithm, or AI-assisted technology forms part of the research methodology, authors should describe its use with sufficient detail to allow readers to understand and evaluate the method.

Where applicable, this may include the model or system used, version or configuration, input data, relevant parameters, validation procedure, limitations, and the role of human supervision.

This methodological reporting requirement is distinct from disclosure of generative AI used merely to assist manuscript preparation.

Authors should consider known limitations of AI technologies, including inaccurate output, fabricated information, false or unverifiable references, embedded bias, privacy risks, and lack of contextual understanding.

Authors must not rely on AI-generated output without appropriate human verification and should take reasonable steps to prevent misleading, discriminatory, unsafe, or otherwise unreliable content from entering the scholarly record.

Reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of manuscripts, supplementary files, and unpublished information received during peer review.

Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscript content into publicly accessible or external generative AI systems, and generative AI should not be used to produce the substantive scientific assessment or recommendation submitted as a peer review.

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, quality, specificity, fairness, and integrity of their review.

Editors must protect manuscript confidentiality and should not submit confidential manuscript content to external generative AI systems for the purpose of producing editorial evaluations or publication decisions.

Generative AI must not independently determine whether a manuscript is accepted, revised, or rejected.

The responsible editor retains authority and accountability for all editorial decisions.

SaNa may use automated or AI-assisted tools to support editorial screening, including tools intended to identify text similarity, unusual manuscript patterns, image concerns, citation anomalies, or possible undeclared use of generative AI.

Results generated by such tools are treated as screening indicators and are subject to human editorial assessment.

An automated score, probability, classification, or detection result will not by itself establish misconduct or determine the final editorial decision.

SaNa does not treat a fixed percentage reported by an AI-detection system as definitive evidence of acceptable or unacceptable authorship practice.

AI-detection results may be considered as part of editorial screening, but they must be interpreted cautiously and reviewed by an editor together with the manuscript, the author's disclosure, and other relevant evidence.

Editorial action focuses on whether AI use has been appropriately disclosed, whether the scholarly content is reliable and verifiable, and whether human authors have fulfilled their responsibilities.