Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence

Critical Dialectics recognises that generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly used in academic writing and research. The journal permits responsible use of such tools, provided that authors maintain academic integrity, protect confidentiality, and remain fully responsible for their work.

This policy applies to the use of generative AI tools in manuscripts submitted to Critical Dialectics.

1. AI Cannot Be an Author

Generative AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors of a manuscript. Authors must be identifiable individuals who can take responsibility for the content, originality, accuracy, and ethical integrity of the work.

This position is consistent with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which states that AI tools cannot meet the requirements for authorship because they cannot take responsibility for the submitted work.

2. Responsible Use of AI

Authors may use AI tools to support limited aspects of their research and writing, including:

  • improving grammar, spelling, and language clarity;
  • translating or assisting with language;
  • generating ideas or possible lines of inquiry;
  • assisting with the organisation or revision of a draft;
  • assisting with other clearly defined and appropriate research or writing tasks.

However, the ideas, arguments, interpretation, analysis, and scholarly contribution must remain the responsibility of the authors.

AI-generated text must not be presented as the author’s original scholarly work.

3. Disclosure of AI Use

Authors must disclose substantive use of generative AI in preparing a manuscript.

The disclosure should identify:

  • the AI tool used;
  • the purpose for which it was used; and
  • the relevant part or stage of the research or writing process, where appropriate.

For example, if an AI tool was used to substantially rewrite or generate portions of the manuscript, this should be clearly disclosed.

Routine use of basic spelling, grammar, or formatting tools does not normally require a separate disclosure unless the tool generates or substantially alters the content.

4. Author Responsibility

Authors remain fully responsible for everything contained in their manuscript, including material produced or modified with the assistance of AI.

Authors must:

  • verify all factual claims and interpretations;
  • check quotations against the original sources;
  • verify all references and citations;
  • ensure that sources actually exist and support the claims made;
  • ensure that the manuscript is original and does not contain plagiarism or fabricated material.

AI tools can produce inaccurate information, fabricated references, and misleading summaries. Authors must therefore consult and cite the original or authoritative sources rather than relying on an AI-generated account alone. The MLA Style Center similarly advises writers to verify sources provided by AI tools and, where possible, consult and cite the original sources directly.

5. AI-Generated Content

Authors must not submit AI-generated text, arguments, analysis, interpretations, references, or other scholarly material as their own original work without appropriate human authorship and disclosure.

AI tools must not replace the author’s:

  • scholarly reasoning;
  • critical engagement with existing research;
  • interpretation of literary or cultural texts;
  • analysis of evidence;
  • development of arguments; or
  • responsibility for the final manuscript.

6. Confidentiality and Unpublished Material

Authors must exercise caution when using external AI systems.

Authors should not upload confidential, unpublished, copyrighted, personal, or otherwise sensitive material into AI systems where doing so could compromise confidentiality or the rights of others.

This includes, where applicable:

  • unpublished manuscripts;
  • research data;
  • interview transcripts;
  • personal or identifiable information;
  • confidential correspondence;
  • unpublished research notes; and
  • material received under a confidentiality agreement.

7. Citation and Acknowledgement

When AI-generated content is directly incorporated into a manuscript, authors should acknowledge or cite the AI tool where appropriate and according to the relevant documentation style.

For manuscripts following MLA style, authors should consult the latest guidance of the MLA Style Center on citing and acknowledging generative AI. The current MLA guidance does not treat an AI tool as an author and provides recommendations for documenting substantive AI-generated material.

8. Editorial Review and Ethical Concerns

The editors of Critical Dialectics may ask authors to provide additional information about their use of AI where questions arise concerning authorship, originality, accuracy, attribution, or research integrity.

Failure to disclose substantive AI use, submission of AI-generated material as original scholarship, fabrication of references or evidence, or misuse of confidential material may be treated as a breach of publication ethics.

9. Record of AI Use

Authors are encouraged to maintain a record of significant AI-assisted work, including relevant prompts, outputs, and subsequent revisions. Such records may be requested if questions arise concerning the authorship, originality, or accuracy of a published or submitted manuscript.

10. Contact

Questions regarding the use of AI in submissions to Critical Dialectics may be directed to:

Email: criticaldialectics@gmail.com

Reference

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). “Authorship and AI Tools: COPE Position Statement.” 13 February 2023. COPE Position Statement on Authorship and AI Tools

For MLA documentation of generative AI, authors may consult the current guidance of the MLA Style Center. MLA Style Center: How Do I Cite Generative AI in MLA Style?