The Journal of Decision Support Systems and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (JODESMA) recognizes that generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies can support authors, editors, and reviewers in certain aspects of scholarly publishing. At the same time, the use of these technologies may introduce risks related to accuracy, originality, confidentiality, authorship, research integrity, and accountability.

JODESMA therefore permits responsible and transparent use of generative AI tools while maintaining the principle that all scholarly and editorial responsibilities remain with human contributors. Generative AI tools cannot replace the intellectual judgment, ethical responsibility, or accountability of authors, editors, or reviewers.

This policy applies to generative AI systems and AI-assisted technologies capable of producing or substantially modifying text, images, code, data interpretations, summaries, references, or other scholarly content.

Authors may use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies for limited and appropriate purposes during manuscript preparation. Such use must not compromise the originality, accuracy, integrity, confidentiality, or authorship of the submitted work.

Authors may use AI-assisted tools for activities such as:

• Correcting grammar, spelling, punctuation, and language.
• Improving sentence structure and readability.
• Translating text between languages.
• Assisting with general formatting or organization of a manuscript.
• Identifying unclear wording or possible inconsistencies.
• Providing suggestions for improving presentation or communication of already developed ideas.
• Assisting with programming or code development, provided that the author independently verifies the resulting code.
• Other limited technical or language-related tasks that do not replace the author's intellectual contribution.

The use of AI for these purposes does not transfer authorship or responsibility to the AI system.

Authors must exercise particular caution when AI tools are used to generate or substantially modify scholarly content. Authors remain fully responsible for checking all AI-assisted material before submission.

This includes verification of:

• Factual statements.
• Mathematical expressions and calculations.
• Statistical analyses.
• Methodological descriptions.
• Interpretations of findings.
• Citations and references.
• Quotations.
• Bibliographic information.
• Tables and figures.
• Computer code.
• Data descriptions.
• Conclusions and recommendations.

AI-generated content may contain inaccurate, fabricated, incomplete, or misleading information. Authors must therefore independently verify the accuracy and relevance of any material produced or modified by an AI system.

Authors must not use generative AI in a manner that violates research integrity or publication ethics. In particular, authors must not use AI to:

• Fabricate or invent research data.
• Manipulate experimental or research results.
• Create false statistical results.
• Fabricate references, citations, quotations, or sources.
• Misrepresent AI-generated material as independently verified research findings.
• Conceal substantial AI-generated contributions.
• Generate fraudulent research evidence.
• Plagiarize or reproduce copyrighted or confidential material without appropriate authorization.
• Manipulate images or figures in a manner that misrepresents research evidence.
• Generate or alter data to produce a desired research outcome.
• Submit AI-generated content without adequate human review and verification.

The use of AI does not provide an exemption from the journal's plagiarism, research misconduct, authorship, copyright, or publication ethics policies.

Generative AI tools, including large language models and other AI systems, cannot be listed as authors or co-authors of a manuscript.

Authorship requires human responsibility for the intellectual contribution and accountability for the published work. AI systems cannot accept responsibility for the manuscript, approve its final version, respond to questions about the research, or disclose conflicts of interest.

Authors must ensure that all individuals listed as authors meet the journal's authorship requirements and that no AI system is presented as an author.

Authors should disclose substantive use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies when the technology contributes to the development, modification, analysis, or presentation of manuscript content beyond routine language correction.

Where disclosure is required, the author should state:

• The name of the AI tool or system.
• The purpose for which it was used.
• The part or stage of the manuscript in which it was used.
• The extent of human review and verification.

A disclosure may be included in an appropriate section of the manuscript, such as the acknowledgements, methodology, or a dedicated AI-use statement, depending on the nature of the use.

Routine use of AI-assisted spelling, grammar, or language correction generally does not require a detailed disclosure unless the AI system substantially rewrites or generates the scholarly content.

Authors are responsible for the entire content of their manuscript, including material that has been generated, translated, edited, summarized, or otherwise modified with AI assistance.

Before submission, authors must independently review AI-assisted content and ensure that:

• The content is accurate.
• The sources are genuine and correctly cited.
• The analysis reflects the actual research.
• The conclusions are supported by the evidence.
• The manuscript complies with ethical and legal requirements.
• The submitted work represents the authors' own scholarly contribution.

The final responsibility for the manuscript cannot be delegated to an AI system.

Authors should not enter confidential, unpublished, proprietary, personal, or otherwise sensitive research information into external generative AI systems unless they have appropriate authorization and adequate safeguards.

Particular care should be taken with:

• Unpublished datasets.
• Confidential participant information.
• Personally identifiable information.
• Proprietary research materials.
• Confidential correspondence.
• Unpublished manuscripts.
• Information subject to contractual or institutional restrictions.

Authors remain responsible for complying with applicable privacy, confidentiality, intellectual property, and research ethics requirements.

Editors may use AI-assisted technologies for limited administrative or technical purposes where such use supports editorial work without compromising confidentiality, fairness, independence, or publication ethics.

Editorial decisions must always remain under human control and must be based on the editor's professional judgment and the journal's editorial policies.

• Improving the wording of routine administrative correspondence.
• Checking grammar or language in non-confidential communications.
• Assisting with general administrative organization.
• Supporting technical formatting tasks.
• Other low-risk activities that do not expose confidential manuscript or reviewer information.

The use of AI must not interfere with the editor's independent assessment of a manuscript.

Editors must protect the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts and related editorial information.

Editors must not upload confidential manuscript materials into external generative AI systems when doing so could expose the material to unauthorized parties or allow it to be retained or reused by the service provider.

• Unpublished manuscripts and manuscript files.
• Reviewer reports.
• Author identities where confidential.
• Reviewer identities.
• Editorial correspondence.
• Unpublished research data.
• Confidential figures and tables.
• Personal information contained in submission materials.

Generative AI must not independently determine whether a manuscript should be:

• Rejected.
• Sent for peer review.
• Accepted.
• Returned for revision.
• Assigned to a particular reviewer.
• Handled through any other substantive editorial decision.

AI-generated recommendations may not substitute for editorial judgment. Editors must independently evaluate manuscripts in accordance with the journal's scope, editorial standards, peer-review procedures, research integrity requirements, and publication ethics policies.

Editors may consider concerns about potentially AI-generated content when relevant to research integrity. However, AI-detection software or automated AI-detection scores must not be treated as conclusive evidence of misconduct.

AI-detection tools may produce false positives and false negatives. Any concern about undisclosed or inappropriate AI use should therefore be assessed using multiple forms of evidence and, where appropriate, communicated to the authors for clarification.

An author should not be considered to have committed misconduct solely because an automated system indicates that a manuscript may contain AI-generated text.

Editors may use AI-assisted language tools for routine editorial correspondence provided that confidential information is adequately protected.

• Accurate.
• Respectful.
• Professionally appropriate.
• Consistent with the journal's policies.
• Not misleading about the basis of an editorial decision.

AI-generated correspondence must be reviewed by the editor before it is sent.

AI tools must not influence editorial decisions in a manner that compromises editorial independence or creates unfair treatment of authors.

Editors must continue to identify and manage conflicts of interest in accordance with the journal's conflict-of-interest policy.

The use of AI does not remove the editor's responsibility to make impartial and evidence-based editorial decisions.

Editors remain accountable for all substantive editorial decisions and communications, regardless of whether AI-assisted tools were used during the editorial process.

Reviewers may use AI-assisted technologies only in limited circumstances and must preserve the confidentiality, integrity, and independence of the peer-review process.

Because peer review involves access to unpublished and confidential research, reviewers must exercise particular caution when using external AI systems.

Reviewers must not upload, paste, transmit, or otherwise disclose confidential manuscript content to external generative AI systems unless the journal has explicitly authorized such use and appropriate confidentiality protections are in place.

• The full manuscript.
• Sections of the manuscript.
• Unpublished data.
• Tables and figures.
• Supplementary materials.
• Confidential author information.
• Reviewer comments.
• Editorial correspondence.
• Other information obtained through the peer-review process.

The manuscript and all materials received for review must be treated as confidential.

Subject to confidentiality requirements, reviewers may use limited AI-assisted tools for non-substantive activities, such as:

• Correcting grammar in their own review comments.
• Improving the clarity of wording in their own evaluation.
• Checking general readability of a review report.
• Other limited language-related assistance that does not disclose confidential manuscript information.

The reviewer must retain control over the content and conclusions of the review.

Reviewers must not use generative AI to:

• Generate a complete peer-review report.
• Replace their own critical assessment of the manuscript.
• Make an accept, revise, or reject recommendation without independent evaluation.
• Disclose confidential manuscript information.
• Generate unsupported criticisms or praise.
• Fabricate evidence concerning the manuscript.
• Identify confidential information about authors or reviewers.
• Reproduce unpublished manuscript content outside the review process.
• Use AI in any way that compromises the independence or confidentiality of peer review.

AI-generated review comments must not be submitted as a substitute for the reviewer's own scholarly assessment.

The reviewer must personally evaluate the manuscript's:

• Relevance to the journal's scope.
• Originality.
• Methodological quality.
• Theoretical or practical contribution.
• Validity of analysis.
• Presentation of results.
• Adequacy of references.
• Clarity of conclusions.
• Compliance with relevant ethical standards.

AI-assisted tools may support limited language-related tasks but cannot replace the reviewer's expertise and independent judgment.

Reviewers should not use AI-detection tools as definitive evidence that a manuscript violates the journal's policies.

If a reviewer has concerns about possible inappropriate AI use, fabricated references, manipulated content, or other integrity issues, the concern should be described factually and reported to the editor rather than treated as established misconduct.

The editor is responsible for determining whether further investigation is appropriate.

Reviewers must protect all information obtained through peer review and must comply with applicable confidentiality and data-protection requirements.

A reviewer must not use confidential manuscript information for personal research, competitive advantage, commercial purposes, or any other purpose unrelated to the peer-review process.

The use of generative AI does not alter the journal's requirements concerning research integrity.

Authors, editors, and reviewers remain subject to JODESMA policies concerning:

• Plagiarism.
• Fabrication and falsification.
• Authorship and contributorship.
• Conflicts of interest.
• Confidentiality.
• Copyright.
• Ethical approval.
• Data integrity.
• Research misconduct.
• Responsible peer review.

Where AI-assisted technologies contribute to a publication or editorial process, their use must be consistent with these requirements.

JODESMA encourages transparency regarding substantive use of generative AI.

The extent of disclosure should be proportionate to the role of AI in the work. Simple language correction is different from using an AI system to generate substantial portions of a manuscript, develop interpretations, produce analytical content, or materially modify research outputs.

Substantive use should be disclosed so that readers and the editorial team can understand the role of AI in the research and manuscript preparation process.

Generative AI systems cannot assume authorship, editorial responsibility, reviewer responsibility, or accountability for published scholarly work.

Human contributors remain responsible for:

• The accuracy of the content.
• The integrity of the research.
• Appropriate attribution and citation.
• Protection of confidential information.
• Compliance with ethical requirements.
• Disclosure of relevant AI use.
• The final decisions concerning the submitted or published material.

JODESMA may request clarification from authors, editors, or reviewers regarding the use of generative AI where necessary to protect research integrity and the integrity of the publication process.

Where JODESMA identifies potentially inappropriate use of generative AI, the journal may request an explanation, supporting information, clarification of the AI-assisted workflow, or other relevant evidence.

If AI use is associated with plagiarism, fabricated references, fabricated data, falsification, copyright infringement, confidentiality violations, undisclosed substantive contributions, or other forms of publication misconduct, the matter may be handled under the journal's applicable publication ethics and research misconduct procedures.

Any action will be based on the nature and seriousness of the concern and will follow the journal's established editorial and publication ethics procedures.

JODESMA will periodically review this policy as generative AI technologies, scholarly publishing practices, research integrity standards, and recommendations from relevant publishing organizations develop.

The journal may revise this policy when necessary to maintain responsible, transparent, and ethical use of AI-assisted technologies in scholarly publishing.

This policy is informed by recognized principles of publication ethics, research integrity, confidentiality, transparency, and responsible use of AI in scholarly communication.