Policy on AI-Assisted Research & Generative AI Tools

Guidance for authors, reviewers, and editors on the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) and other AI tools, informed by scholarly publishing best practices

Key Rule

AI Tools Cannot Be Credited as Authors · Full Disclosure of AI Assistance Required

Author Guidelines Ethics Statement

1. Authorship Criteria & Non-Human Agents

In line with international scholarly publishing guidance, generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot) cannot be listed as authors or co-authors on any manuscript submitted to PIJCACE. Authorship carries moral, legal, and academic accountability for the integrity and validity of the research, which non-human computational models cannot assume. Human authors remain fully responsible for everything in the submission, including any content produced with AI assistance.

2. Mandatory Disclosure of AI Assistance

If an author uses generative AI or algorithmic tools during conceptualization, literature search or summarization, translation, code generation, data analysis, drafting, or substantive language editing, this must be disclosed in a dedicated section titled "Declaration of AI-Assisted Technologies" placed before the References. Basic spelling and grammar checkers, reference managers, and similar tools that do not generate content do not need to be declared.

"During the preparation of this work the author(s) used [Tool/Service Name] in order to [reason: e.g., improve English readability / generate exploratory clustering script]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the published article."

Authors must verify all AI-assisted output, including facts, quotations, translations, and citations, since generative tools can fabricate references and misstate sources. Quotations from primary texts (for example, Sanskrit or other source-language passages and their translations) must be checked against the original by the author.

3. AI-Generated Figures, Images & Artwork

AI-generated synthetic imagery, or fabricated cultural artefacts presented as genuine historical, archaeological, or ethnographic documentation, are prohibited and treated as academic fraud. AI-generated images may be used only where they are the subject of the research or are clearly labelled as AI-generated, with the tool named and permissions confirmed on the Permissions Form.

4. Use of AI by Reviewers & Editors

Manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers and editors must not upload a manuscript, or any part of it, or reviewer reports, to a generative AI tool that could store, learn from, or expose that content. Reviewers must write their own assessments; AI tools must not be used to produce the review or to make recommendations. Where an AI tool was used for a limited purpose that does not disclose confidential content (for example, checking the language of the reviewer's own text), the reviewer should say so to the editor.

5. Screening & Consequences

AI use may be considered during desk screening. Automated AI-detection tools are unreliable and are treated as advisory only; they are never the sole basis for a decision. Editors may ask authors to clarify how a manuscript was prepared. Failure to disclose substantial AI use, fabricated citations, or synthetic material presented as genuine evidence will be handled under the procedures in our Ethics & Malpractice Statement, and may lead to rejection of a submission or, for published work, to a correction or retraction.

Questions about acceptable AI use may be sent to ethics@poorvam.com before submission.

Last updated: September 29, 2026