AGM Journal
Generative AI and assisted technologies
01Human authorship and responsibility
AI systems cannot qualify as authors or assume responsibility for a scholarly article. Human authors remain accountable for the accuracy, originality, rights, and integrity of every submitted element. Do not delegate judgement about evidence, interpretation, or ethical responsibilities to a generated response. All authors should understand and approve the final text, including any material produced with assistance.
02Disclosure of substantive assistance
Disclose substantive generative AI use in drafting, translation, coding, analysis, or other preparation, naming the tool and explaining its purpose and the human checks performed. Ordinary spelling or formatting assistance need not be overstated. Where AI is part of the research method, describe it with enough detail for methodological evaluation rather than relying solely on a general acknowledgement.
03Verification and prohibited fabrication
Check generated references against real sources, verify quotations and calculations, and ensure translations preserve meaning. AI must not be used to fabricate observations, participant statements, citations, or deceptive images. If synthetic material is legitimately studied, identify it as synthetic and explain its creation and limitations. A fluent output is not evidence that a claim is correct.
04Confidentiality and rights
Do not place unpublished manuscripts, participant information, confidential review reports, or third-party material into an external AI system without appropriate authority and a clear understanding of its terms. Editors and reviewers must protect the material entrusted to them. The journal does not represent that any particular AI service is approved, private, secure, or compliant with every applicable obligation.
05Editorial assessment
Editors should consider the disclosed use, its effect on reliability, and whether human authors can account for the work. Undisclosed or misleading use may lead to clarification requests or action under the ethics and corrections policies. No automated AI detector score alone establishes misconduct. Reviewers should supply their own reasoned assessment and must not outsource a confidential review to a generative service.
06Applying this policy
This document sets out the editorial rules adopted for AGM Journal. Read it with the author guidelines and related handbook policies. A policy describes the responsibilities expected of participants; it does not establish membership of an external organisation, a certification, or a guarantee of acceptance. Where an individual case falls outside the examples given here, the editorial office should explain the applicable rule and record the reason for its decision.
07Questions and accountability
Contact the editorial office at editorial@agmjurnal.uz with the article title, submission reference, the policy section, and your question. Provide supporting information without unnecessarily identifying research participants. The office should identify who can consider the matter and request clarification where necessary. Material changes to these rules should be reflected in a new document version. Keep your submission’s policy version; earlier commitments should be assessed against the information originally supplied.
Reference standards
- Elsevier — Generative AI policies for journals ↗https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/generative-ai-policies-for-journals
- COPE — Core practices ↗https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
- ICMJE — Authorship and contributorship ↗https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html