Peer review in Neo Civic Education: Media Kajian Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan relies on the expert judgement of people. Reviewers and editors stay fully responsible for their assessments and must keep manuscripts confidential. This follows the COPE position statement on authorship and AI tools, the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, and the journal’s Generative AI Policy.

—  Upload a manuscript, its files, the reviews, or decision letters to a generative AI tool. This breaks confidentiality and may break the authors’ rights over unpublished work.

—  Use generative AI to assess the manuscript, write the review report, or recommend a decision.

—  Use generative AI to make or draft editorial decisions.

—  Ask authors to cite sources suggested by AI without checking that they exist and are relevant.

—  Reviewers may use a language tool to improve the grammar or clarity of a report they wrote themselves, without entering any text from the manuscript.

—  Editors may use the tools built into the journal’s systems, such as similarity checking, which do not share the manuscript with generative AI services.

—  Any use of AI tools for a review is declared to the editor in the confidential comments.

—  Editors read each review for depth, accuracy, and relevance to the manuscript.

—  A review that appears to be AI-generated, generic, or inaccurate is not used. The editor may invite another reviewer.

—  Reviewers who breach this policy may be removed from the reviewer database, and serious cases are handled under Peer Review Manipulation and Research Misconduct.

Authors who use generative AI in their research or writing declare it in the Declaration of Generative AI Use, as set out in the Generative AI Policy. Reviewers may raise concerns about undisclosed AI use with the editor in confidence.

Write to neociviceducation@unima.ac.id. See also the Peer Review Process  ·  Editing Peer Reviews  ·  Publication Ethics.