Generative AI & AI-Assisted Technologies Policy

This policy applies to generative artificial intelligence systems and AI-assisted technologies capable of producing or materially transforming text, code, images, audio, video, datasets, references, analytical outputs, summaries, translations, visualizations, or other scholarly content.

Conventional computational tools that perform deterministic statistical analysis, reference management, spell checking, grammar checking, formatting, numerical calculation, or other routine functions without generating substantive scholarly content are not ordinarily treated in the same manner as generative AI, unless their use materially affects the research or interpretation and therefore requires methodological disclosure.

Authors remain fully responsible for the originality, accuracy, integrity, attribution, validity, ethical compliance, and scholarly quality of every component of a manuscript submitted to ALFI, regardless of whether an artificial intelligence tool assisted in its preparation.

Authors must critically review and verify AI-assisted output before incorporating it into a manuscript. Generative AI output must not be treated as inherently accurate, authoritative, original, unbiased, or appropriately referenced.

Submission of a manuscript constitutes confirmation that the named human authors have reviewed the complete work and accept accountability for all claims, references, data, interpretations, figures, tables, code, and other content contained within it.

Statements such as “the AI generated the error,” “the chatbot supplied the reference,” or “the model produced the analysis” do not transfer responsibility away from the authors. Human authors remain accountable for identifying and correcting inaccurate, fabricated, biased, plagiarized, misleading, or otherwise inappropriate AI-generated material before submission.

Authors must disclose the use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies when such tools have made a substantive contribution to manuscript preparation, research design, data processing, analytical procedures, coding, interpretation, content generation, visualization, translation of substantive scholarly content, or another material component of the work.

The disclosure should identify the tool or system used, its function in the work, and the nature of human verification or oversight where relevant. AI disclosure must not be used to assign authorship or responsibility to the technology.

Authors may use AI-assisted tools for spelling, grammar, readability, formatting, or limited language improvement provided that the scholarly meaning remains under human control and the authors carefully review the resulting text.

Routine language assistance that does not generate substantive intellectual or scientific content does not ordinarily require a formal AI disclosure. However, substantial AI-generated rewriting, translation, synthesis, interpretation, or generation of scholarly argument should be disclosed.

Authors remain responsible for ensuring that translation or language assistance does not alter scientific meaning, introduce unsupported claims, remove necessary qualifications, fabricate terminology, or create inaccurate references.

Authors must independently verify every citation and bibliographic reference included in a manuscript. Generative AI systems may produce nonexistent articles, incorrect author names, false publication details, fabricated DOI identifiers, inaccurate quotations, or misleading summaries of genuine sources.

Authors must consult and verify the original scholarly source rather than relying solely on an AI-generated description. Submission of fabricated or materially inaccurate references may constitute a serious quality or publication-integrity concern.

A generative AI response should not be used as a substitute for an appropriate scholarly source when a factual, theoretical, methodological, or scientific claim requires evidence. Authors should cite the original literature, dataset, standard, official document, or other authoritative source supporting the claim.

Where artificial intelligence is itself part of the research method, analytical pipeline, intervention, experimental system, classification process, prediction model, data-processing workflow, or object of study, its use must be reported in the Methods section with sufficient detail for scholarly evaluation.

Depending on the study, relevant information may include the system or model name, provider or developer, version or access date where relevant, methodological purpose, key settings, input preparation, validation procedures, human oversight, and other information necessary to understand how AI-generated or AI-assisted outputs affected the research.

When generative AI materially contributes to a research procedure, authors should report sufficient information about the workflow to enable qualified readers to understand and evaluate the process. Where prompts, parameters, scripts, or model configurations are central to reproducibility, authors are encouraged to provide them in the manuscript, supplementary material, or an appropriate repository where legally and technically permissible.

AI tools must not be used to fabricate experimental observations, survey responses, participant records, measurements, laboratory data, farm records, statistical results, field observations, citations, or other research evidence and present the material as genuinely observed data.

Synthetic data may be scientifically legitimate in certain research designs, but it must be identified explicitly as synthetic and its generation, validation, analytical purpose, and limitations must be reported transparently.

Artificial intelligence must not be used to alter scientific images, microscopy, field photographs, gels, chromatograms, diagnostic images, experimental outputs, or other evidentiary visual material in a way that creates, removes, conceals, relocates, or materially changes scientific information.

Where an AI-generated illustration or conceptual visualization is scientifically appropriate and does not represent itself as observational evidence, its AI-generated nature should be disclosed clearly and its use must comply with copyright, licensing, research-integrity, and ethical requirements.

Editors may request original unmodified image files or other supporting material where image integrity is relevant to editorial assessment.

AI-assisted paraphrasing, rewriting, translation, text spinning, or content transformation must not be used to disguise plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate publication, unattributed ideas, or other misuse of existing scholarship.

A passage remains improperly derived from another source even when an AI system has altered its vocabulary or sentence structure. Appropriate citation and attribution remain necessary.

Authors must not upload confidential research information, identifiable participant data, unpublished proprietary data, protected farm or company records, restricted datasets, confidential peer-review material, or other sensitive information into generative AI systems where the tool's data-use, retention, security, or confidentiality arrangements do not provide adequate protection.

Use of AI tools must remain consistent with informed consent, ethical approval, contractual obligations, intellectual-property rights, privacy requirements, institutional policies, and applicable law.

Manuscripts under peer review are confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers, editors, and editorial staff must not upload an unpublished manuscript, supplementary file, confidential reviewer report, author information, research data, image, or editorial correspondence into a public or external generative AI system when confidentiality, intellectual-property protection, or secure data handling cannot be assured.

Peer review must reflect the reviewer's own qualified scholarly judgment. Reviewers must personally read, assess, and evaluate the manuscript and remain accountable for the content of the review they submit.

Reviewers must not delegate substantive manuscript evaluation or the generation of peer-review conclusions to a generative AI system. AI-generated assessments may contain errors, bias, unsupported criticism, fabricated information, or recommendations that do not reflect expert scholarly review.

Limited assistive use may be acceptable only when it does not compromise confidentiality and does not replace the reviewer's intellectual assessment. The reviewer remains fully responsible for every comment, criticism, recommendation, and factual statement submitted to ALFI.

Editorial decisions must be made by qualified human editors. Generative AI must not determine whether a manuscript is accepted, rejected, revised, retracted, corrected, or subjected to an integrity investigation.

Editors may use appropriate automated tools for administrative or quality-control purposes only when confidentiality, security, fairness, and human oversight are maintained. Any automated output must be interpreted critically by a responsible editor rather than treated as an autonomous editorial judgment.

An editor remains responsible for ensuring that decisions are based on the manuscript, peer-review record, applicable policies, ethical considerations, and independent scholarly judgment.

Editorial and production staff may use appropriate automated tools to assist with non-substantive administrative tasks, formatting, metadata checking, language quality control, or production workflows when use of the technology is consistent with confidentiality, data protection, intellectual-property obligations, and human oversight. Such tools must not independently generate or alter the scholarly conclusions of an article.

ALFI may use automated or AI-assisted screening tools as one component of editorial quality control where appropriate. However, the output of an AI-detection tool is not treated as conclusive proof that a manuscript was generated by artificial intelligence or that misconduct occurred.

Editorial action must be based on a broader assessment of relevant evidence, manuscript quality, transparency, source verification, author explanations, integrity indicators, and applicable journal policies rather than an automated score alone.

Authors using generative AI must ensure that submitted content does not infringe copyright, database rights, privacy rights, trade secrets, contractual restrictions, licenses, or other third-party rights. Use of an AI tool does not establish that its output is free from intellectual-property restrictions.

Authors remain responsible for obtaining necessary permissions and for ensuring that the licensing of published material is compatible with ALFI's Copyright & Licensing Policy.

Generative AI systems may produce biased, incomplete, outdated, non-reproducible, or entirely fabricated outputs. Authors must therefore evaluate whether AI-assisted material introduces systematic bias, inappropriate generalization, invented information, inaccurate terminology, or unsupported interpretation.

Where AI systems materially affect a study, limitations associated with the technology should be considered in the research design and discussed where relevant to interpretation of the findings.

Editors may ask authors to clarify how AI systems were used, provide relevant methodological information, verify sources or references, supply original data or images, explain unusual textual or analytical patterns, or revise an AI disclosure where additional transparency is required.

Failure to disclose material AI involvement is assessed according to its significance. An inadvertent omission that does not affect the reliability or integrity of the work may be resolved through clarification or revision. Deliberate concealment associated with fabricated content, plagiarism, manipulated evidence, false citations, or other misconduct may require stronger editorial action.

Depending on the circumstances and publication stage, inappropriate AI use may result in revision, rejection, suspension of editorial processing, integrity investigation, correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, institutional referral, or other proportionate action.

Credible concerns involving AI-generated fabricated data, false references, plagiarism, manipulated images, undisclosed substantive generation, or other integrity problems identified after publication will be assessed under ALFI's Publication Ethics and Allegations of Misconduct procedures.

Where the integrity or reliability of the Version of Record is affected, ALFI may publish a correction, clarification, Expression of Concern, retraction, or other appropriate editorial notice in accordance with its Corrections & Retractions Policy.

ALFI supports responsible technological innovation in scholarly communication. However, artificial intelligence is treated as an assistive technology rather than an autonomous scholarly actor. Authorship, peer review, ethical assessment, editorial decisions, interpretation of evidence, and responsibility for the published scholarly record remain human responsibilities.

Agriculture, Livestock, and Food Industry (ALFI) is affiliated with Yayasan Kalidaka Cendikia Nusantara and formally published by WISE Pendidikan Indonesia. The journal's use of automated technologies in publishing workflows does not transfer scholarly or editorial responsibility away from its human authors, reviewers, editors, or responsible publishing personnel.

This Generative AI Policy should be read together with ALFI's Authorship & Contributorship Policy, Publication Ethics, Peer Review Process, Similarity & Plagiarism Policy, Data Sharing & Reproducibility Policy, Ethical Clearance & Research Ethics Policy, Allegations of Misconduct Policy, Copyright & Licensing Policy, and Corrections & Retractions Policy.