Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy

The Eurasian Journal of History recognizes that generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies are increasingly used in academic writing, translation, language editing, data processing, source searching, and other stages of scholarly communication. These technologies may assist researchers in improving the clarity, readability, and linguistic quality of a manuscript; however, their use requires strict compliance with the principles of academic integrity, transparency, accountability, confidentiality, source reliability, and human authorship.

For the purposes of this policy, generative AI includes large language models, chatbots, text and image generators, machine translation systems, software assistants, data-processing tools, reference-checking and formatting tools, and other technologies capable of creating, modifying, summarizing, translating, classifying, or interpreting text, images, data, and other scholarly content. Such tools include, but are not limited to, ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, DeepSeek, DALL-E, Midjourney, Canva AI, Grammarly AI, and other similar systems.

Generative AI tools must not be listed as an author or co-author of a manuscript. Authorship implies responsibility for the accuracy, originality, scholarly integrity, final content, and published outcome of the research. Since AI tools cannot take responsibility for the content of the work, answer questions about the research, verify the reliability of sources, or approve the final version of the manuscript, they do not meet the criteria for authorship. Full responsibility for all parts of the manuscript, including any parts prepared with the assistance of AI tools, rests with the authors.

Authors may use generative AI only in a limited and responsible manner. Permitted uses include improving grammar, spelling, punctuation, syntax, readability, academic style, translation quality, and linguistic clarity of the manuscript. In all cases, AI must be used only as an auxiliary tool and not as a substitute for the author’s scholarly work. Authors must carefully review, edit, and verify any text or output produced with the assistance of AI.

The use of generative AI is not permitted as a substitute for historical research, source criticism, historiographical review, scholarly argumentation, interpretation of historical facts, or formulation of conclusions. Authors must not use AI to fabricate historical facts, create fictitious archival documents, produce false quotations, generate invented historiography, provide unsupported interpretations, or present unverified information as scholarly evidence. In historical research, the authenticity, provenance, context, and critical interpretation of sources are of fundamental importance; therefore, any information obtained with the assistance of AI must be verified against real and reliable sources.

Authors are prohibited from using generative AI to create, alter, or distort historical evidence. This applies to archival documents, photographs, maps, tables, manuscripts, official records, oral history materials, museum objects, and any other sources presented as historical evidence. AI must not be used to remove, add, conceal, enhance, or alter elements of an image or document in a way that affects its evidentiary meaning. Basic technical adjustments such as brightness, contrast, resolution, or colour balance may be acceptable only if they do not change, conceal, or distort the original content.

The use of generative AI to create fabricated references, false quotations, non-existent DOI numbers, fictitious archival call numbers, inaccurate bibliographic descriptions, or misleading information is a serious violation of publication ethics. All references, quotations, archival call numbers, DOI numbers, page numbers, and bibliographic records must be real, accurate, and verifiable. Authors are responsible for independently checking every source before submission. AI-generated references must not be included in the manuscript unless their existence, accuracy, and relevance have been independently verified by the authors.

If authors have used generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in the preparation of a manuscript, they must clearly and transparently disclose this fact. The statement must indicate the name of the tool or service, the version where available, the developer or provider, the purpose of use, and the part of the work in which the tool was applied. Information about the use of AI must be included both in the cover letter at submission and in the manuscript itself. In the article, this statement should be placed before the list of references in a separate section entitled “Declaration of the Use of Generative AI Tools.”

Recommended wording:

Declaration of the Use of Generative AI Tools

During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [name of AI tool/service, version if available, developer/provider] in order to [state the purpose: improving language, grammar, readability, translation quality, or academic style]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed, verified, and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and final content of the published article.

If AI tools were used only for basic spelling, grammar, or technical reference-format checking and did not generate substantive scholarly text, interpretations, sources, or conclusions, disclosure is generally not required. However, in cases of uncertainty, authors are encouraged to disclose the use of the relevant tool.

If AI was used substantively, including for data processing, digital humanities methods, corpus analysis, translation analysis, statistical processing, image recognition, transcription, OCR correction, mapping, network analysis, or other research procedures, authors must describe this use in the “Materials and Methods” section or an equivalent methodological section. The description must be sufficiently detailed for readers, reviewers, and editors to understand how the tool was used, what data or sources were processed, which version of the tool was used, and how the authors verified the results.

Authors must not upload confidential, restricted-access, copyrighted, unpublished, personal, or legally protected materials into generative AI tools unless they have the right and permission to do so. This is especially important for unpublished archival documents, oral history interviews, personal data, private correspondence, fieldwork materials, photographs, and materials obtained under restricted-access conditions.

The use of generative AI for plagiarism, paraphrasing without attribution, concealing borrowed text, bypassing originality-checking systems, or misrepresenting authorship is strictly prohibited. The journal reserves the right to use originality-checking systems, reference verification, image analysis, AI-use detection, and other editorial tools when evaluating manuscripts.

Reviewers must not use generative AI tools to review, summarize, evaluate, translate, or prepare recommendations on manuscripts submitted to the Eurasian Journal of History. Peer review is a confidential expert process that requires human scholarly judgement, critical thinking, disciplinary competence, and responsibility. A manuscript under review is a confidential document and must not be uploaded, copied, summarized, or transmitted to any AI tools, chatbots, language models, or third-party platforms. This prohibition also applies to tables, images, archival documents, unpublished data, supplementary materials, and review reports.

Editors must not use generative AI tools to make editorial decisions, assess the scholarly quality of manuscripts, analyze reviewers’ comments, or determine whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected. Editorial decisions require human responsibility, academic expertise, ethical judgement, and accountability. All materials submitted to the journal, including manuscripts, reviews, author responses, editorial correspondence, data, images, and supplementary files, must be treated as confidential.

The editorial board may request clarification from authors regarding the use of AI tools at any stage of submission, review, revision, production, or post-publication evaluation. If undisclosed, misleading, or inappropriate use of AI is suspected, the journal may request additional information, original source materials, drafts, data, archival references, or other evidence confirming the authenticity and originality of the work. Failure to provide satisfactory clarification may result in rejection of the manuscript, suspension of the review process, publication of a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other editorial measures.

Violation of this policy is considered a breach of publication ethics. Serious violations include listing AI as an author; submitting AI-generated manuscripts without disclosure; fabricating historical facts, quotations, archival references, or bibliographic sources; using AI to conceal plagiarism; manipulating images or documents presented as historical evidence; uploading confidential manuscripts to AI tools during peer review or editorial evaluation; and misrepresenting the role of AI in the research or writing process. Depending on the nature and severity of the violation, the journal may reject the manuscript, notify the authors’ institution, publish a correction or retraction, or take other measures in accordance with its publication ethics policy.

The Eurasian Journal of History supports the responsible use of innovation in scholarly communication, while affirming that historical research must be based on verifiable sources, critical analysis, transparent methodology, accurate citation, and human scholarly responsibility. Generative AI may assist authors in limited technical or linguistic tasks, but it must not replace the historian’s work with sources, the author’s interpretation, or the ethical obligations of academic publication.