Generative AI Policy

INSLA E-Proceedings Policy on the Use of Generative AI (GenAI)

The integration of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) technologies introduces novel dimensions to academic writing, data synthesis, and conference proceedings management. INSLA E-Proceedings acknowledges the utility of these computational tools in refining scholarly drafts and optimizing drafting workflows. However, to preserve strict intellectual accountability, research integrity, and academic ethics, this policy establishes the mandate, definitions, and operational criteria governing GenAI utilization by contributors, referees, and the editorial committee.

All stakeholders participating in the INSLA E-Proceedings publication pipeline are expected to thoroughly read and systematically comply with the directives detailed below.

1. Mandatory Disclosure and Transparency Protocols

Contributors submitting to INSLA E-Proceedings must strictly declare any reliance on GenAI tools (including but not limited to Large Language Models like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or specialized automated code/data synthesizers) during the preparation of their camera-ready papers.

  • Scope of Disclosure: Declarations are mandatory if GenAI was utilized for conceptual mapping, structural drafting, extensive stylistic paraphrasing, data translation, or algorithmic data modeling.
  • Mechanism of Disclosure: Authors must embed a formal declaration within the paper's Acknowledgment section prior to the Reference list.
  • Standard Phrasing Model: "Operational Note: Generative AI [Specify Model/Tool Name] was deployed by the authors exclusively for [specify function, e.g., structural proofreading and syntactic optimization]. The ultimate contextual architecture, technical validation, and interpretation of the data were fully executed and ratified by the human authors."

⚠️ Submissions suspected of utilizing GenAI assistance without explicit disclosure will be flagged for technical ethics violations and may face immediate desk rejection.

2. Non-Eligibility of AI for Academic Authorship

In alignment with global scholarly consensus, INSLA E-Proceedings explicitly dictates that GenAI platforms cannot be designated as authors or co-authors of any submitted paper.

  • The Principle of Liability: Legal and ethical authorship inherently demands intellectual accountability, consensus-driven approval of final proofs, and legal responsibility regarding copyright and plagiarism. Because GenAI cannot assume liability or exercise intellectual agency, its inclusion in the author line-up is prohibited.
  • Human Oversight: The designated human authors bear full individual and collective responsibility for the authenticity, technical accuracy, and lack of bias across the entire manuscript text.

3. Research Integrity & Fabricated Outputs

The application of GenAI must not compromise the foundational metrics of academic truth. Authors must remain vigilant against the following vulnerabilities:

  • Fictitious Reference Generation (Hallucinations): GenAI models frequently generate plausible-sounding but completely non-existent citations. Authors are required to manually audit every reference to guarantee its physical and digital existence.
  • Empirical Integrity: Utilizing AI to falsify, extrapolate, or manipulate raw empirical metrics, survey outcomes, or laboratory results constitutes severe academic misconduct.

4. Guidelines for the Peer Review and Referee Network

To guarantee absolute confidentiality and protect intellectual property, the INSLA E-Proceedings editorial ecosystem applies strict boundaries on its review processes:

  • Prohibition of Manuscript Uploads: Referees assigned to evaluate abstracts or full papers are strictly forbidden from pasting or uploading confidential manuscript texts, data matrices, or abstracts into public or commercial GenAI interfaces. Doing so breaches the author's copyright and confidentiality.
  • Human-Driven Evaluation: Evaluation metrics, methodological critiques, and final acceptance recommendations must be formulated solely through the expert human intellect of the appointed reviewers.

5. Editorial Oversight & Quality Benchmarking

The INSLA E-Proceedings Editorial Board reserves the right to leverage automated infrastructure solely for internal operations—such as preliminary plagiarism screening (Similarity Index checks), formatting compliance, and structural sorting. However:

  • Human Final Authority: Every qualitative decision, acceptance verdict, and thematic indexing selection is executed entirely by human editors.
  • AI-generated metrics are treated merely as supplementary reference data, never as automated editorial mandates.

6. Step-by-Step Compliance Checklist for Corresponding Authors

Before executing your submission via the INSLA E-Proceedings portal, please ensure compliance with this checklist:

[ ] Identify and Disclose: Insert a clear AI usage declaration statement in the Acknowledgment section if applicable.
[ ] Cross-Check Citations: Manually verify that all URL paths, DOIs, and bibliographical data generated or organized by tools are verified and authentic.
[ ] Plagiarism Sweeping: Run independent originality checks to ensure AI-formulated phrasing has not inadvertently mirrored existing copyrighted literature.
[ ] Intellectual Originality: Ensure that the intellectual core—such as the thesis statement, contextual arguments, legal/Syariah analysis, and conclusions—remains completely human-authored.

7. Policy Adaptation and Dynamic Evolution

As algorithmic content generation models continue to advance, the regulatory framework of INSLA E-Proceedings will be reassessed annually. The Editorial Board retains the authority to modify these provisions dynamically to counter emerging publication risks and uphold contemporary global standards in academic publishing.