Eduistiqomah in Islamic Education Management (EIEM) recognizes the responsible, transparent, and ethical use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies in Islamic Education Management research and scholarly publishing.
This policy is established to promote academic integrity, originality, transparency, human accountability, confidentiality, ethical research practices, and responsible scholarly communication.
This policy is informed by internationally recognized principles and guidance, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, the COPE Discussion Document on Artificial Intelligence in Decision Making, and the Elsevier Generative AI Policies for Journals.
Authors may use Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies to support scholarly activities, including:
However, Generative AI must not replace the author's intellectual contribution, critical thinking, management analysis, scholarly judgment, ethical reasoning, or responsibility for the manuscript.
Authors remain responsible for critically reviewing, verifying, and editing all AI-assisted outputs before submission.
Authors must disclose the use of Generative AI when the technology makes a substantive contribution to manuscript preparation.
The disclosure should identify:
Authors may use the following statement:
Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies: During the preparation of this manuscript, the author(s) used [NAME OF TOOL/SERVICE] for [PURPOSE]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) critically reviewed and edited the output as necessary and take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, interpretation, ethical compliance, and integrity of the final manuscript.
Routine spelling, grammar, punctuation, and basic language correction generally do not require formal disclosure. Substantive AI-assisted contributions to manuscript content, analysis, interpretation, conceptual development, or research methodology should be disclosed.
This approach is consistent with current Elsevier Generative AI Policies for Journals.
Authors remain fully responsible for:
Generative AI systems may produce inaccurate, incomplete, biased, or fabricated information. Authors must independently verify AI-assisted outputs before incorporating them into their manuscripts.
Generative AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors.
Authorship requires intellectual contribution, accountability, approval of the final manuscript, and responsibility for the integrity of the published work. These responsibilities must be assumed by human authors.
Generative AI may be used as a research-support tool in areas such as:
When AI forms part of the research methodology, its use must be transparently described in the Methods/Methodology section.
Where applicable, authors should identify:
Generative AI may assist researchers in exploring leadership concepts, organizational models, management frameworks, and strategic alternatives.
However, AI-generated leadership or management recommendations must not automatically be presented as established scholarly conclusions.
Authors must critically examine:
The final interpretation and scholarly conclusions remain the responsibility of the authors.
When research discusses Islamic values in educational management, authors must carefully verify the relevant religious and scholarly sources.
AI-generated statements concerning Islamic management principles must not be treated as authoritative without verification.
Authors should independently verify references to:
AI-generated quotations, religious references, or scholarly attributions must be checked against the original or authoritative source.
AI may be used to support:
When AI contributes substantively to data analysis, authors must explain its role in the Methods/Methodology section.
Authors remain responsible for verifying the accuracy of the analysis and ensuring that AI-generated interpretations do not replace appropriate methodological procedures.
Research in Islamic Education Management may involve sensitive institutional information.
Authors must exercise caution when using AI systems to process:
Confidential or personally identifiable information must not be uploaded to external AI systems where confidentiality, privacy, or data protection cannot be adequately assured.
AI may be used to assist in developing:
Authors must independently evaluate such materials for:
AI-generated management models must not be presented as empirically validated without appropriate research evidence.
Authors must not use Generative AI to:
AI-generated organizational charts, management frameworks, conceptual models, diagrams, and educational illustrations may be used where appropriate.
Where substantive AI assistance is used, authors should disclose the tool and its role.
Authors remain responsible for ensuring that the visual representation accurately reflects the research findings, theoretical framework, or management model being presented.
AI must not be used to fabricate or manipulate primary research evidence.
Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and review materials.
Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, unpublished research, confidential institutional information, personal data, or review materials into external Generative AI systems where confidentiality, privacy, intellectual property, or data protection cannot be adequately assured.
Reviewers remain responsible for their independent scholarly assessment and recommendations.
This principle is consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and current Elsevier Generative AI Policies for Journals.
Reviewers may use AI-assisted tools for limited language or structural improvement of their review reports, provided that confidential manuscript information is not disclosed.
Where substantive AI assistance is used in preparing a review report, reviewers should disclose the tool and purpose where appropriate.
The reviewer remains fully responsible for:
Editors may use AI-assisted technologies for limited administrative or supportive purposes where appropriate and where confidentiality is protected.
However, AI must not independently determine the final editorial decision.
Decisions concerning:
must remain under the responsibility of human editors.
This principle is consistent with the COPE AI in Decision Making discussion document, which emphasizes human oversight and accountability in AI-assisted editorial processes.
Authors, reviewers, editors, and other participants in the EIEM publishing process must exercise particular caution when using AI systems.
Confidential or unpublished information must not be submitted to external AI systems where doing so could compromise:
AI use must not circumvent ethical requirements applicable to research involving human participants or educational institutions.
EIEM may request authors, reviewers, or editors to clarify their use of Generative AI.
Where inappropriate, undisclosed, or misleading AI use is identified, the journal may request:
Generative AI may assist Islamic Education Management research and scholarly communication, but it does not replace human intellectual contribution, management reasoning, critical judgment, ethical responsibility, Islamic scholarly interpretation, research integrity, or editorial responsibility.
EIEM will periodically review and update this policy in response to developments in Generative AI, Islamic Education Management research, research ethics, and international scholarly publishing standards.
ADDITIONAL MENU
SUBMIT ARTICLE
