Good Governance (GG) recognizes that artificial intelligence (AI) tools can support scholarly research and academic writing when used responsibly. However, the use of AI must not compromise research integrity, originality, transparency, confidentiality, or accountability. This policy is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Position Statement on Authorship and AI Tools, the COPE Core Practices, and COPE's discussion document on artificial intelligence in decision making.

Authors may use AI tools to assist with language editing, grammar correction, translation, formatting, literature organization, or other supporting tasks, provided that such use does not undermine the originality, accuracy, and integrity of the manuscript. Authors remain responsible for verifying all AI-generated or AI-assisted content, including factual statements, data interpretations, citations, and references. These expectations are consistent with the accountability principles described in the COPE Position Statement on Authorship and AI Tools.

Authors must disclose the use of generative AI tools when those tools contribute substantively to the preparation or content of a submitted manuscript. The disclosure should identify the AI tool used and describe its purpose and scope of use. The statement may be included in an appropriate section of the manuscript, such as the acknowledgements or methods section, depending on the nature of the use. This requirement reflects the principles of transparency and accountability discussed in the COPE Position Statement on Authorship and AI Tools.

Routine spelling, grammar, and basic language-editing assistance may be treated differently from the use of generative AI to produce substantive text, analysis, or research content. Authors should follow the journal's submission instructions and disclose AI use whenever it materially contributes to the manuscript. Any disclosure must accurately describe the tool's role and must not misrepresent the extent of AI involvement.

AI tools, chatbots, and other artificial intelligence systems cannot be listed as authors or co-authors of a manuscript because they cannot assume responsibility for the work, approve the final version, or be held accountable for its integrity. Authorship must remain with eligible human contributors. This principle is stated in the COPE Position Statement on Authorship and AI Tools.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that all information generated or assisted by AI is accurate, properly referenced, and consistent with the evidence presented in the manuscript. AI-generated references, quotations, statistics, legal provisions, or other factual claims must be independently verified before submission. Authors must not use AI tools to fabricate data, invent sources, misrepresent research findings, conceal plagiarism, or produce misleading scholarly content. These responsibilities align with the principles of research integrity and publication ethics outlined in the COPE Core Practices.

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and unpublished research submitted for peer review. Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscript content, unpublished data, or identifiable author information to public or third-party AI systems when doing so could breach confidentiality or the journal's review policies. Reviewers must also not rely on AI-generated assessments as a substitute for their own expert judgment. These precautions are consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and COPE's discussion document on AI in decision making.

Editors may use appropriate digital tools to support administrative or preliminary editorial tasks, provided that their use complies with confidentiality, transparency, and data protection requirements. AI tools must not replace editorial responsibility or be treated as the sole basis for decisions concerning acceptance, rejection, or publication. The editor remains accountable for editorial decisions and must exercise independent professional judgment. These principles are consistent with the transparency and accountability considerations in the COPE Discussion Document on Artificial Intelligence in Decision Making and the COPE Core Practices.

If the editorial team identifies suspected undisclosed or inappropriate AI use, the journal may request clarification from the authors and assess the matter based on the available evidence. Depending on the nature and seriousness of the concern, the journal may request revisions, reject the manuscript, or take appropriate post-publication action if the article has already been published. Cases involving suspected fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other ethical violations will be handled under the journal's publication ethics policies and relevant COPE guidance.

Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to use AI responsibly and transparently within their respective roles. GG retains responsibility for editorial decisions and for applying this policy fairly and consistently. As AI technologies and publication ethics standards continue to evolve, the journal may review and update this policy in light of developments in scholarly publishing and relevant guidance from COPE.