Generative AI Policy

1. Introduction

Andalasian Livestock (ALive) recognizes the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) and generative AI technologies in scientific research, scholarly writing, data analysis, and academic publishing.

These technologies may support research productivity, improve language clarity, facilitate computational tasks, and assist researchers in communicating scientific findings. However, their use also introduces significant concerns regarding accuracy, originality, research integrity, confidentiality, transparency, accountability, intellectual property, and the reliability of the scholarly record.

Andalasian Livestock is committed to the responsible, transparent, and ethically appropriate use of generative AI in all stages of scholarly publication.

The journal recognizes that AI-assisted technologies may support human activities but cannot replace the intellectual responsibility, scientific judgment, or ethical accountability of authors, reviewers, and editors.

This policy establishes principles and requirements governing the use of generative AI by authors, peer reviewers, editors, and other individuals involved in the journal's publication process.

The policy is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) position on authorship and AI tools, relevant COPE Core Practices, and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations concerning AI use in scholarly publishing.

2. Description

2.1. Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence refers to computational systems capable of performing tasks associated with aspects of human intelligence, including pattern recognition, prediction, language processing, classification, and decision support.

AI encompasses a wide range of technologies, including machine learning, deep learning, computer vision, natural language processing, and generative AI.

2.2. Generative Artificial Intelligence

Generative AI refers to computational systems capable of producing new content in response to prompts or other inputs.

Generated content may include:

• Written text.

• Computer code.

• Images and illustrations.

• Audio and video.

• Summaries and translations.

• Synthetic datasets.

• Other forms of digital content.

Generative AI outputs may contain factual inaccuracies, fabricated references, biased statements, or material that resembles protected third-party content.

2.3. Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are AI systems trained to process and generate natural language.

LLMs may assist with drafting, editing, summarizing, translation, and other language-related activities.

Their outputs must be independently evaluated because fluent language does not establish scientific accuracy.

2.4. AI-Assisted Research

AI-assisted research involves the use of AI systems in research activities, including data processing, classification, statistical modeling, image analysis, prediction, or interpretation.

The use of AI as a scientific method is distinct from the use of generative AI to assist with manuscript writing.

Research applications of AI must be reported with sufficient methodological detail to permit scientific evaluation.

2.5. AI-Assisted Writing

AI-assisted writing refers to the use of AI tools to support the preparation, revision, translation, organization, or linguistic improvement of scholarly manuscripts.

Authors remain responsible for all content included in the submitted manuscript.

2.6. AI Disclosure Statement

An AI disclosure statement is a declaration explaining whether AI-assisted technologies were used and, when applicable, identifying the tools and their role in preparing or conducting the reported work.

Disclosure supports transparency and allows editors, reviewers, and readers to understand the extent of AI involvement.

3. Policy

3.1. General Principles

Andalasian Livestock adopts the following principles for responsible AI use:

1. Human authors remain accountable for the submitted work.

2. AI tools cannot qualify as authors or coauthors.

3. Material AI assistance must be disclosed transparently.

4. AI-generated information must be independently verified.

5. AI must not be used to fabricate or falsify research evidence.

6. Intellectual property and attribution requirements must be respected.

7. Confidential manuscripts and editorial information must be protected.

8. AI must not replace independent scientific peer review.

9. Editorial decisions must remain under qualified human responsibility.

10. Alleged misuse must be assessed fairly and proportionately.

These principles apply throughout the manuscript submission, review, editing, production, and post-publication stages.

3.2. AI Tools Cannot Be Authors

Generative AI systems, chatbots, and other AI-assisted technologies must not be listed as authors or coauthors of manuscripts submitted to Andalasian Livestock.

Authorship requires intellectual responsibility and accountability that AI systems cannot independently fulfill.

AI systems cannot:

• Approve a manuscript for publication.

• Accept responsibility for research integrity.

• Respond independently to allegations of misconduct.

• Make legally meaningful authorship declarations.

• Manage competing interest disclosures.

• Enter into copyright and licensing agreements.

All listed authors must be identifiable human contributors who satisfy the journal's Authorship and Contributorship Policy.

3.3. Human Accountability

Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, reliability, ethical compliance, and integrity of their manuscripts, including any content prepared with AI assistance.

Authors must independently verify:

• Scientific claims.

• Research methods.

• Numerical results.

• Statistical interpretations.

• References and citations.

• Tables and figures.

• Research conclusions.

• Copyright and licensing compliance.

The use of AI does not transfer responsibility from authors to technology providers.

3.4. Permitted AI-Assisted Activities

The journal recognizes that AI tools may provide legitimate assistance when used responsibly.

Potentially acceptable activities include:

Language Improvement

Assistance with grammar, spelling, clarity, sentence structure, and academic language.

Translation

Translation of manuscript text, provided the authors verify the scientific meaning and accuracy.

Manuscript Organization

Assistance with outlines, section organization, or readability.

Literature Discovery

Assistance in identifying potentially relevant literature, provided that all references are independently verified.

Programming Support

Assistance in developing or debugging analytical code, provided that the code and its outputs are validated.

Data Processing

AI-assisted data processing or analysis where scientifically justified, accurately described, and appropriately validated.

Research Visualization

Assistance with visual presentation, provided that the resulting figures accurately represent the underlying evidence and any generated elements are disclosed.

Acceptability depends on the purpose, extent, transparency, and consequences of the AI use.

3.5. AI-Assisted Language Editing

Authors may use AI tools to improve the language and readability of a manuscript.

Such assistance must not introduce unsupported claims, alter scientific meaning, fabricate findings, or obscure the authors' actual contributions.

Routine spelling and grammar checking may be treated as minor editorial assistance.

Substantive generative rewriting, drafting, translation, or content development should be disclosed.

Authors should follow any additional disclosure requirements established by the journal's approved submission procedures.

3.6. AI-Generated Scientific Content

AI-generated scientific explanations, interpretations, literature summaries, and other substantive content must be critically evaluated by the authors.

Authors must not assume that generated content is accurate merely because it is expressed confidently or in formal scientific language.

AI-generated text must not be used to:

• Invent research findings.

• Misrepresent existing literature.

• Create unsupported scientific conclusions.

• Conceal weaknesses in research methods.

• Produce fabricated references.

• Reproduce unattributed third-party work.

• Misrepresent the origin of intellectual contributions.

The authors must retain meaningful intellectual control over the manuscript.

3.7. Mandatory Disclosure of Material AI Use

Authors must disclose material use of generative AI or other AI-assisted technologies in the preparation of submitted manuscripts.

The disclosure should identify:

1. The name of the AI tool or system.

2. The provider or developer, where relevant.

3. The purpose of use.

4. The manuscript or research activities in which it was used.

5. The extent of the AI contribution.

6. Any relevant verification or validation performed by the authors.

Where appropriate, the disclosure should identify the version of the tool and the date or period of use.

Authors must not conceal substantial AI assistance.

3.8. Location of AI Disclosure

AI use should be disclosed in a location appropriate to its function.

Acknowledgments or AI Use Declaration

For AI-assisted writing, translation, substantive editing, or organizational support.

Materials and Methods

For AI used in data collection, data processing, image analysis, statistical modeling, prediction, or other research methods.

Figure Captions or Supplementary Information

For relevant AI-generated or AI-assisted visual material.

Submission Declaration

For confirmation of AI use during the journal's editorial screening process.

The journal may require disclosure both in the manuscript and in the OJS submission information.

3.9. Proposed AI Disclosure Statement

Authors who have used AI tools may use the following statement, adapted to their actual circumstances:

"During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [AI TOOL AND PROVIDER] for [SPECIFIC PURPOSE]. The authors reviewed, verified, and edited the relevant outputs and take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the published content."

When AI was used as part of the research methodology, authors must provide a more detailed description in the Materials and Methods section.

3.10. Declaration When No Generative AI Was Used

Where required by the journal's submission procedure, authors may state:

"The authors declare that no generative AI tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript."

Such a statement must be truthful and should not be used to conceal substantive AI assistance.

3.11. AI in Research Design and Methodology

When AI is used as a research tool, authors must describe its role with sufficient detail for scientific assessment.

Relevant information may include:

• The AI model or algorithm.

• Software or platform.

• Model version.

• Input data.

• Training or fine-tuning procedures, where applicable.

• Validation methods.

• Evaluation metrics.

• Human oversight.

• Known limitations.

• Reproducibility considerations.

The required level of detail should be proportionate to the significance of the AI method.

3.12. AI in Livestock and Animal Science Research

Andalasian Livestock recognizes legitimate AI applications in livestock and animal science, including:

• Animal behavior recognition.

• Livestock identification.

• Body weight estimation.

• Disease detection.

• Feed intake prediction.

• Feed formulation optimization.

• Milk production prediction.

• Reproductive performance analysis.

• Genetic and genomic prediction.

• Precision livestock farming.

• Animal welfare monitoring.

• Environmental and production modeling.

Such applications are not prohibited merely because they use AI.

Authors must explain the research methods, validate the outputs, and report limitations.

AI-based predictions must not be misrepresented as direct experimental measurements.

3.13. AI-Generated and Synthetic Data

Authors must not present AI-generated or synthetic observations as authentic experimental measurements.

In particular, synthetic data must not be misrepresented as:

• Actual animal growth measurements.

• Real feed consumption records.

• Laboratory assay results.

• Milk yield observations.

• Reproductive performance records.

• Farm survey responses.

• Clinical or diagnostic observations.

• Genomic measurements from actual biological samples.

Synthetic data may be used in legitimate simulation or methodological research when its origin, purpose, generation process, and limitations are clearly disclosed.

The distinction between real observations and simulated data must remain explicit.

3.14. AI-Assisted Data Analysis

AI-assisted statistical or computational analysis may be used when methodologically appropriate.

Authors must validate the analysis and ensure that the reported results are reproducible to the extent reasonably possible.

Authors should retain relevant:

• Original datasets.

• Analytical scripts.

• Model configurations.

• Software versions.

• Processing records.

• Validation results.

AI-generated statistical interpretations must be checked against the actual data and analytical outputs.

3.15. AI-Generated Images and Figures

The journal distinguishes between scientific figures representing research evidence and illustrative material.

AI-generated images must not be presented as authentic photographs, microscopy images, laboratory results, or experimental observations.

Prohibited practices include:

• Generating fictitious animal photographs and presenting them as study subjects.

• Creating synthetic laboratory images and presenting them as experimental evidence.

• Fabricating graphical results.

• Altering images to conceal undesirable findings.

• Generating misleading visual representations of treatments or outcomes.

• Replacing missing scientific evidence with AI-generated imagery.

Illustrative AI-generated graphics may be considered when they are scientifically appropriate, clearly identified, and do not misrepresent actual research evidence.

Authors must disclose relevant AI use and comply with applicable intellectual property requirements.

3.16. AI Image Enhancement

Routine image adjustments should preserve the scientific meaning and integrity of the original data.

AI-assisted enhancement, segmentation, classification, or reconstruction that materially affects the presentation of scientific evidence must be appropriately described.

Authors should retain original image files and relevant processing records.

Image manipulation must not selectively add, remove, or alter scientifically relevant features in a misleading manner.

3.17. AI-Generated References and Citations

Authors must independently verify all references suggested or generated by AI tools.

References must correspond to genuine, identifiable sources.

The journal prohibits:

• Fabricated citations.

• Invented DOI numbers.

• Nonexistent journal articles.

• Incorrect attribution of findings.

• Citations that do not support the stated claims.

• Misleading bibliographic details.

AI-generated summaries must not substitute for critical examination of relevant scholarly sources.

AI output should not be cited as the primary evidence for scientific findings when the underlying scholarly or empirical source is available.

3.18. Plagiarism and Intellectual Property

AI-assisted content must comply with the journal's Plagiarism Policy and Intellectual Property Policy.

Authors must ensure that generated or transformed material does not unlawfully reproduce copyrighted content or appropriate another person's intellectual contributions.

AI assistance does not eliminate the need for:

• Appropriate citation.

• Copyright permission where required.

• Accurate attribution.

• Disclosure of reused materials.

• Compliance with publication licensing terms.

Authors remain responsible for investigating and resolving potential rights issues before submission.

3.19. Confidentiality and Data Protection

Authors must protect confidential, sensitive, proprietary, or restricted research information when using AI tools.

Examples may include:

• Confidential farm records.

• Unpublished proprietary breeding data.

• Personal information.

• Sensitive veterinary records.

• Confidential research agreements.

• Restricted datasets.

• Unpublished manuscripts belonging to others.

Such information must not be uploaded to external AI services without an appropriate lawful basis, authorization, and adequate safeguards.

Authors should consider the service's data handling, retention, training, and privacy arrangements.

3.20. AI Use by Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of manuscripts and associated materials.

Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts, figures, datasets, or confidential review correspondence to external generative AI systems when confidentiality cannot be assured, unless the journal has explicitly authorized the use and the necessary permissions and safeguards are in place.

Reviewers must not delegate the substantive scientific evaluation of a manuscript to an AI system.

AI may assist with limited tasks only where permitted by the journal and compatible with confidentiality requirements.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for their assessments and recommendations.

3.21. Disclosure of AI Use by Reviewers

Reviewers who receive authorization to use AI tools in the review process must disclose the relevant use to the handling editor.

The disclosure should identify the tool and purpose.

Reviewers must verify any AI-assisted output before incorporating it into their review reports.

AI-generated criticism must not be submitted without independent scientific evaluation.

3.22. AI Use by Editors

Editors may consider AI-assisted tools for appropriate administrative or editorial support, subject to approved confidentiality, security, and ethical safeguards.

Editors must not:

• Upload confidential manuscripts to unauthorized AI services.

• Delegate final editorial decisions to AI.

• Use AI-generated assessments without appropriate human verification.

• Disclose reviewer identities through AI services.

• Rely on unsupported AI-generated allegations of misconduct.

• Use AI to circumvent conflicts-of-interest safeguards.

Editorial decisions must remain under the responsibility of qualified human editors.

3.23. AI Use in Editorial Production

AI-assisted tools may be used for copyediting, language refinement, formatting support, metadata preparation, or other production tasks where authorized.

The journal should ensure that such use does not alter scientific meaning, introduce errors, or compromise confidentiality.

Material AI involvement in the journal's production process should be communicated transparently where relevant.

The journal should not claim that AI-assisted production services are currently used unless their use has been verified.

3.24. AI Detection Tools

Andalasian Livestock recognizes that automated AI-content detection tools have limitations.

Such tools may produce false positives and false negatives.

An AI detection score must not, by itself, establish that an author violated this policy.

The journal should not automatically reject or sanction a manuscript solely because a detection tool indicates a high probability of AI-generated text.

Where concerns arise, editors should consider the available evidence, the author's explanation, the nature of the content, and the actual requirements of this policy.

3.25. Similarity Detection and AI Detection

Similarity detection and AI-content detection are distinct processes.

Similarity detection identifies overlap with accessible source material.

AI-content detection attempts to estimate whether content may have been generated by AI.

Neither type of score independently establishes plagiarism, fabrication, or other misconduct.

Editorial decisions must rely on appropriate human assessment and substantiated evidence.

3.26. Undisclosed AI Use

Failure to disclose material AI use may constitute a breach of the journal's publication requirements.

The seriousness of the breach depends on:

• The nature of the undisclosed activity.

• The extent of AI involvement.

• Whether the omission was deliberate.

• Whether the manuscript contains inaccurate or misleading content.

• Whether research integrity was compromised.

• Whether the authors cooperate in correcting the record.

Minor or inadvertent omissions may be addressed through clarification or correction.

Serious deception, fabrication, plagiarism, or falsification may require rejection or further investigation.

3.27. AI-Related Research Misconduct

The journal considers the following practices unacceptable:

1. Fabricating research data with AI.

2. Presenting synthetic observations as genuine experimental results.

3. Creating false scientific images.

4. Inventing references or source material.

5. Using AI to conceal plagiarism.

6. Misrepresenting AI-generated interpretations as independently verified findings.

7. Submitting fabricated reviewer reports.

8. Disclosing confidential manuscripts through unauthorized AI services.

9. Concealing substantial AI involvement where disclosure is required.

10. Using AI to manipulate editorial or peer-review procedures.

Credible allegations will be assessed under the journal's Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

3.28. Editorial Action Before Publication

When concerns arise about AI use in a submitted manuscript, the editor may:

• Request an AI disclosure statement.

• Ask authors to clarify how a tool was used.

• Request supporting data or analytical documentation.

• Require correction of inaccurate content.

• Request replacement of misleading images or references.

• Seek independent expert assessment.

• Reject a manuscript where serious integrity concerns remain unresolved.

• Refer credible misconduct allegations for further investigation.

Editorial action should be proportionate to the evidence.

Authors should ordinarily have an appropriate opportunity to respond to substantive allegations.

3.29. Post-Publication Action

Concerns identified after publication will be assessed under the journal's Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections Policy.

Depending on the circumstances, the journal may publish:

Correction

When an omission or error can be adequately remedied without undermining the principal findings.

Expression of Concern

When serious questions remain unresolved and readers should be informed.

Retraction

When findings are fundamentally unreliable or serious publication misconduct warrants retraction.

Retraction is not an automatic consequence of every undisclosed use of AI.

3.30. Fairness and Editorial Independence

The journal will evaluate AI-related concerns fairly and without discrimination.

Authors must not be penalized solely for using legitimate AI-assisted language support.

Likewise, authors must not receive preferential treatment because they use particular technologies.

The editorial assessment should focus on scientific reliability, transparency, accountability, and compliance with approved policies.

3.31. Policy Updates

AI technologies and scholarly publishing practices continue to evolve.

Andalasian Livestock should periodically review this policy in light of:

• New research integrity concerns.

• Developments in generative AI.

• Changes in relevant legal requirements.

• Updated publication ethics guidance.

• Advances in scientific validation methods.

• Changes in editorial infrastructure.

Substantive policy revisions should be communicated transparently.

4. Implementation and Procedures

4.1. Submission Declaration

The journal should establish an AI-use declaration in the OJS submission process.

Authors should be asked whether material AI assistance was used.

Where AI was used, authors should identify the relevant tool and purpose.

4.2. Recommended OJS Submission Question

Question:

"Was generative artificial intelligence or another AI-assisted technology used in preparing the manuscript or conducting the reported research?"

Response options:

• No.

• Yes — for language editing or translation.

• Yes — for substantive writing or manuscript preparation.

• Yes — for research methods, data processing, or analysis.

• Yes — for figures, images, or other visual materials.

• Yes — for another purpose, described in the disclosure.

Authors should be able to select more than one applicable category.

4.3. Manuscript Disclosure

The journal should provide an appropriate location for an AI Use Declaration.

Authors should describe material AI assistance accurately.

For AI used in the scientific methodology, the Materials and Methods section should contain sufficient technical detail for assessment.

4.4. Initial Editorial Screening

During initial screening, the editorial office should verify whether an AI declaration has been provided where required.

The editor should assess whether the declared use raises questions about originality, confidentiality, methodological adequacy, or research integrity.

A declaration of AI use must not automatically lead to rejection.

4.5. Reviewer Instructions

Reviewer guidance should include explicit requirements concerning:

• Manuscript confidentiality.

• Restrictions on uploading manuscripts to AI services.

• Human responsibility for review reports.

• Disclosure of authorized AI assistance.

• Prohibition of fabricated or unverified review content.

4.6. Editor Instructions

Editors should receive guidance concerning:

• Appropriate AI use in editorial work.

• Confidentiality and data protection.

• Evaluation of author disclosures.

• Limitations of AI detection tools.

• Handling of AI-related allegations.

• Human responsibility for editorial decisions.

4.7. Verification of AI-Assisted Research

Where AI is part of the research methodology, reviewers and editors may request appropriate documentation concerning:

• Model identification.

• Input data.

• Model validation.

• Analytical code.

• Performance metrics.

• Reproducibility.

• Limitations.

• Interpretation of results.

Requests should be proportionate to the research design and the significance of the AI method.

4.8. Handling Suspected Violations

The journal should follow a documented process:

1. Identify the specific concern.

2. Review available evidence.

3. Determine whether clarification is necessary.

4. Request an author response where appropriate.

5. Seek independent advice if needed.

6. Assess the seriousness of the issue.

7. Determine a proportionate editorial action.

8. Document the decision.

9. Apply post-publication procedures where relevant.

4.9. OJS Technical Implementation

The journal's OJS administrator should verify that the submission workflow can accommodate AI-use declarations.

Possible implementation methods include:

• Submission checklist items.

• Author declaration forms.

• Manuscript template requirements.

• Editorial screening checklists.

• Reviewer guidelines.

Approved AI declaration mechanism: [INSERT VERIFIED OR APPROVED OJS WORKFLOW]

Responsible editorial role: [INSERT APPROVED ROLE]

Official contact: [INSERT VERIFIED EDITORIAL EMAIL]

4.10. Training and Awareness

The editorial team should communicate the policy to authors, reviewers, and editors.

Relevant guidance should be linked from:

• Author Guidelines.

• Publication Ethics and Policies.

• Peer-Review Processes.

• Authorship and Contributorship Policy.

• Data and Reproducibility Policy.

• Plagiarism Policy.

4.11. Policy Review

The Editor-in-Chief and authorized editorial team should periodically review the policy and revise it when necessary.

The review should consider developments in AI technologies and scholarly publication ethics.