Overview and Aim

The journal adopts a clear, responsible policy on artificial intelligence tools — particularly generative AI — ensuring disciplined benefit from these technologies without compromising the originality of research, the integrity of authorship, the confidentiality of review, the reliability of data, or the academic responsibility of authors, editors, and reviewers. AI tools have become part of the contemporary research and writing environment and may help improve wording, organize ideas, analyze some data, and enhance research efficiency. At the same time, using them does not relieve researchers of their scholarly and ethical responsibility for everything in the study; AI may not replace scientific thinking, human analysis, methodological judgment, the editorial decision, or the author’s responsibility for the soundness, accuracy, and originality of the research.

This policy regulates the use of AI tools at all stages of preparing, submitting, reviewing, editing, and publishing manuscripts; ensures transparency in disclosing such use; protects authors’ rights; safeguards the confidentiality of manuscripts; and prevents the misuse of AI to produce non-original content, fabricated data, invented references, or misleading analyses — balancing the encouragement of responsible use of modern technologies with the core standards of refereed publishing: originality, integrity, accountability, transparency, confidentiality, and scholarly quality.

Scope and Definitions

This policy applies to all parties in the journal’s publishing process — authors, editors, editorial-board members, reviewers, the editorial secretariat, language and technical editors, and any party involved in preparing, reviewing, evaluating, or producing a study for publication — and to all types of material submitted, including original research, theoretical studies, reviews, case studies, strategic analyses, technical papers, book reviews, and related editorial material.

“AI tools” here means any digital tool, application, or system using machine learning, large language models, generative AI, or automated analytics to produce, modify, summarize, translate, analyze, or review text, images, data, tables, figures, or references — including, for example: text-generation tools, paraphrasing tools, advanced machine translation, summarization tools, image- or figure-generation tools, AI data-analysis tools, reference-suggestion or -generation tools, language- and style-checking tools, code-preparation or software-analysis tools, and academic-writing support tools. The journal does not distinguish the author’s responsibility by the tool or its brand; the key criterion is the nature of the use and its effect on the study, data, and results.

General Principles

• AI tools may be used in an assisting, responsible way — not as a substitute for human scientific thinking and analysis.
• Authorship may not be attributed to any AI tool.
• Authors bear full responsibility for the study’s content, whether or not AI tools were used.
• Any substantive use of AI in preparing the study, analyzing data, producing figures, or developing the text must be disclosed.
• AI may not be used to generate fabricated data, results, references, or quotations.
• AI may not be used in any way that violates confidentiality, privacy, or intellectual-property rights.
• Reviewers and editors may not upload manuscripts or parts of them to external AI tools where this could expose the study’s content or authors’ data or breach review confidentiality.
• AI tools may not make final acceptance, rejection, or scholarly-evaluation decisions on behalf of editors or reviewers.
• Scholarly, ethical, and legal responsibility must remain a clear, defined human responsibility.
• The use of AI must comply with research ethics, journal policies, and relevant laws and regulations.

AI and Authorship

No AI tool may be listed as an author or co-author of any manuscript. Scholarly authorship requires the capacity to bear responsibility, approve the final version, respond to scholarly accountability, defend the results and analyses, and declare conflicts of interest — requirements AI tools cannot meet. Accordingly, all listed authors must be natural persons who made a genuine scholarly contribution, and authors bear responsibility for any content created, modified, or suggested with the help of AI tools.

Permitted Uses for Authors

The journal permits limited, assisting use of AI tools, provided it is disclosed where applicable and does not compromise the originality or scholarly responsibility of the research. Potentially acceptable uses include:

• Improving language and wording without changing the scholarly meaning.
• Correcting grammatical or stylistic errors.
• Helping organize initial ideas, which the author then rephrases and analyzes.
• Summarizing the author’s own notes or texts for organizational purposes.
• Supporting initial translation, subject to careful human review.
• Helping format tables, headings, or structural layout.
• Supporting data analysis if explained in the methodology and the author can interpret and verify the procedures.
• Generating code or commands to assist analysis, provided it is checked, verified, and documented as needed.
• Improving readability without changing the scholarly argument, results, or conclusions.

In all cases, authors must scientifically review AI-produced or -modified content and verify its correctness, accuracy, and suitability before submitting the study.

Prohibited Uses for Authors

The journal does not allow any AI use that compromises the originality, integrity, or reliability of the research. Prohibited uses include:

• Generating a complete manuscript, or substantial parts of it, without genuine scholarly contribution from the authors.
• Generating fabricated research data.
• Inventing results, tables, figures, or charts.
• Generating non-existent or inaccurate references.
• Generating undocumented or fabricated direct quotations.
• Paraphrasing others’ work in a way that conceals plagiarism.
• Using AI to evade the similarity check or hide duplicate publication.
• Producing misleading images, figures, or visual data.
• Using AI to analyze sensitive data without permission or data-protection guarantees.
• Entering personal, institutional, or confidential data into unapproved external tools.
• Using AI to produce scholarly claims the authors cannot explain or defend.
• Citing an AI tool as a scholarly source in place of reliable references.

The journal reserves the right to reject any manuscript shown to have used AI in a way that violates this policy or threatens research integrity.

Disclosure and Suggested Statements

Authors must clearly disclose any substantive use of AI tools in preparing the study. Substantive use means any use beyond simple language correction or formatting that affects the wording, organization, analysis, interpretation of data, or production of tables, figures, code, or charts. The disclosure should state, where applicable: the tool’s name or type; the purpose of use; the part or stage where it was used; confirmation that the authors reviewed and verified the outputs; and confirmation that the authors bear full responsibility for the final content. The disclosure must appear in a dedicated section titled “Statement on the Use of Artificial Intelligence.”

• No AI used: “The author(s) declare that no generative AI or digital assistance tools were used in preparing this study, except for conventional technical tools used in editing or formatting, if any.”
• Language editing only: “The author(s) used digital assistance tools for proofreading and improving clarity only, without generating scholarly content, data, results, or references. The author(s) reviewed the full text and bear full responsibility for its final content.”
• Initial translation: “The author(s) used an AI tool to assist with the initial translation of some parts of the study; the text was then scientifically and linguistically reviewed and edited by the authors, who bear full responsibility for its accuracy and scholarly meaning.”
• Data analysis or coding: “The author(s) used an AI tool to help prepare some code or support data-analysis procedures. The author(s) verified the procedures and outputs, and all results, interpretations, and conclusions remain solely the authors’ responsibility.”
• Figures or charts: “The author(s) used an AI tool to help prepare or improve some figures or illustrations. These materials have been verified for accuracy and scholarly suitability and contain no misleading or fabricated data or material infringing intellectual-property rights.”

AI in Methodology, References, and Plagiarism

The journal distinguishes AI used as a writing or editing aid from AI used as part of the research methodology itself. If AI is part of the study design, data collection, analysis, model building, simulation, prediction, or classification, this must be explained in detail in the methodology, stating: the type of tool or model; the rationale for use; the input data; output-verification procedures; the tool’s or model’s limitations; any potential biases; the effect of AI on the results; and the measures taken to ensure reliability and reproducibility. It is not enough to say “AI was used in the analysis” without explaining the method, procedures, and controls.

AI tools may not be used to generate a reference list without fully verifying that each reference exists, is accurate, and is relevant; fabricated, unread, or unused references may not be cited. Authors are responsible for verifying author names, publication year, article or book title, journal or publisher name, volume, issue, and page numbers, the DOI or link if any, and the reference’s relevance to the text. Fabricated or inaccurate references may be treated as an ethics violation warranting rejection, correction, or retraction depending on when they are discovered. AI may not be used to paraphrase others’ work to conceal plagiarism or lower the similarity percentage without respecting intellectual property; automated paraphrasing does not relieve the author of the duty to document, nor does it turn others’ ideas or text into original work. AI-related plagiarism is handled exactly as any other form of plagiarism.

Sensitive Data and Visual Materials

Given that some of the journal’s areas relate to aviation, training, safety, and military, air, or strategic institutions, no sensitive, unauthorized, institutional, personal, security, or operational data may be entered into unapproved external AI tools — including research-participant data; institutional or personnel data; unpublished internal documents; operational information; non-public training or safety data; images, recordings, or texts that reveal the identity of persons or entities; and any information subject to confidentiality or institutional approvals. Authors bear full responsibility for protecting the data they use and for not entering it into any system that could expose, store, or allow third-party use of it without permission.

If authors use AI tools to generate images, figures, charts, or visual materials, this must be clearly disclosed, and they must ensure such materials contain no visual deception, fabricated data, intellectual-property infringement, or inaccurate representation of results. The journal does not accept AI-generated or -modified images or figures presented as experimental evidence or a representation of real data without clarification, and a distinction must be drawn between illustrations used for explanation and visual materials that represent research results or data.

Editor and Reviewer Responsibilities; Review Confidentiality

Editors and board members must use AI tools, if at all, in a way that does not compromise manuscript confidentiality or the independence of the editorial decision. Editors may not rely on AI to make acceptance or rejection decisions or to determine a manuscript’s scholarly value; editorial decisions remain a human responsibility based on editorial screening, the study’s scope-fit, reviewer reports, research quality and methodology, adherence to ethics, and the specialist editor’s judgment. External tools may not be used to process, summarize, or analyze manuscripts where this would expose their content or breach the confidentiality of authors or reviewers.

Reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of manuscripts sent to them and may not upload the study or any part of it to external AI tools to summarize, analyze, evaluate, or draft the review report where this could expose the study’s content or violate authors’ rights. A reviewer may use limited aids to improve the wording of their own report, provided this does not involve entering the study, its data, ideas, or results into unsafe or unapproved tools; the reviewer remains fully responsible for their scholarly opinion, recommendations, and observations. AI tools may not replace the reviewer’s scholarly judgment or issue the acceptance/rejection recommendation on their behalf. The journal treats manuscripts, review reports, and editorial correspondence as confidential — covering the study text, data, tables and figures, author and reviewer identities, review reports, editorial correspondence, and board decisions before they are officially announced. Any breach of review confidentiality using AI is a serious violation of the journal’s policy.

Detection Tools, Non-Compliance, Related Policies, and Review

The journal may, when needed, use tools or indicators to detect the likely use of AI in submitted texts, but does not rely on these alone in editorial decisions, given the possibility of false positives or false negatives. The board treats detection results as supporting indicators only, not conclusive evidence; in cases of serious suspicion, it may ask authors to explain how the study was prepared and how digital tools were used, or request copies of the data, drafts, or supporting procedures.

If the journal finds that authors used AI substantively without disclosure, or in a way contrary to this policy, it may: request a formal clarification; request an amendment to the disclosure statement; return the study to the authors before review; temporarily suspend review; reject the study; withdraw acceptance if found after acceptance and before publication; publish a correction, clarification, or retraction if found after publication; or take further action in serious cases under the publication-ethics policy — the appropriate action depending on the nature of the violation and its effect on the originality, reliability, and rights involved.

This policy is read together with the journal’s other policies — author guidelines, peer-review policy, publication ethics, plagiarism and originality, conflict of interest, data availability, open access and copyright, and corrections and retractions; where an apparent conflict arises, the policies are interpreted to achieve the highest level of scholarly integrity, transparency, protection of rights, and review confidentiality. Given the rapid development of AI technologies and related publishing standards, this policy is reviewed and updated periodically by the editorial board and publisher; substantive updates are announced on the journal’s website and apply to manuscripts submitted after the announcement date unless the updated policy provides otherwise.