Generative AI Policy and Responsible Use

The Journal of Mathematical Extension (JME) recognizes the increasing use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) and AI-assisted technologies in research, manuscript preparation, peer review, and scholarly publishing.

JME supports the responsible use of GenAI as a supporting tool where its use is transparent, appropriately supervised, and consistent with the principles of research and publication integrity. GenAI must not replace the intellectual contribution, critical reasoning, mathematical judgement, scholarly evaluation, or decision-making expected from authors, reviewers, and editors.

The use of GenAI does not transfer responsibility from the human participants involved in the publication process. Authors remain responsible for their manuscripts and research, reviewers remain responsible for their assessments and recommendations, and editors remain responsible for editorial evaluation and decisions.

This policy applies to authors, reviewers, editors, Editorial Board members, editorial staff, and others involved in the submission, peer-review, editorial, and publication processes of JME.

1. General Principles for the Use of GenAI

The use of GenAI in connection with JME should be guided by the principles of transparency, human accountability, accuracy, originality, confidentiality, and protection of intellectual property.

GenAI may assist scholarly activities but should not replace appropriate human expertise, verification, reasoning, or judgement.

Any person using GenAI in connection with material submitted to JME is responsible for verifying the accuracy, appropriateness, and integrity of the resulting content.

Particular care must be taken when GenAI is used in relation to mathematical results, proofs, calculations, references, citations, computer code, algorithms, figures, or other material where inaccurate or fabricated output could affect the validity or interpretation of scholarly work.

Use of GenAI must also respect copyright, intellectual property rights, confidentiality, privacy, and any applicable institutional, contractual, or legal obligations.

2. GenAI Malpractice and Unethical Use

The use of GenAI constitutes or may contribute to publication malpractice when it compromises the originality, accuracy, transparency, confidentiality, accountability, or integrity of scholarly work or of the publication process.

Examples of unacceptable or unethical use include, but are not limited to:

  • using GenAI to fabricate, falsify, manipulate, or misrepresent mathematical results, proofs, calculations, data, analyses, references, citations, figures, or other research content;

  • including GenAI-generated references, quotations, mathematical statements, factual claims, or results without verifying their accuracy and the existence and relevance of the underlying sources;

  • using GenAI to conceal plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate publication, fabricated research, falsification, or other publication misconduct;

  • presenting substantial GenAI-generated scholarly content as genuine human intellectual contribution without appropriate human evaluation or required disclosure;

  • using GenAI to create false evidence, fictitious sources, invented results, manipulated research outputs, or misleading scholarly material;

  • using GenAI in a way that materially misrepresents the actual intellectual contribution of an author;

  • failing to disclose substantive GenAI use where disclosure is required under this policy;

  • using GenAI-generated or GenAI-modified material in violation of copyright, intellectual property, privacy, confidentiality, or other rights;

  • providing confidential manuscripts, unpublished research, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, personal information, or protected material to a GenAI service where appropriate confidentiality and data protection cannot be assured;

  • using GenAI to manipulate, interfere with, or improperly influence the peer-review or editorial process; or

  • delegating scholarly judgement, peer-review decisions, or editorial decisions to GenAI in place of qualified human assessment.

The use of GenAI does not excuse plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inaccurate citation, copyright infringement, breach of confidentiality, peer-review manipulation, or any other violation of JME's publication ethics policies.

Where inappropriate or undisclosed use of GenAI raises concerns regarding a submitted manuscript or published article, JME may investigate the matter in accordance with its Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice policy. Depending on the circumstances, appropriate action may include requesting clarification or correction, rejecting a manuscript, correcting the scholarly record, issuing an Expression of Concern, considering retraction, or referring serious concerns to an appropriate institution or authority.

3. Use of GenAI by Authors

Authors may use GenAI as a supporting tool during research or manuscript preparation, provided that its use is consistent with this policy and does not replace the authors' own scholarly contribution, critical reasoning, mathematical judgement, interpretation, or conclusions.

Appropriate supporting uses may include assistance with language and readability, organization of manuscript content, literature exploration, translation, algorithm and code debugging and exploratory mathematical or computational tasks, provided that appropriate human oversight and verification are maintained.

Accuracy and Verification

Authors remain fully responsible for all material contained in their submitted and published work, regardless of whether GenAI contributed to its preparation.

Authors must critically review and independently verify GenAI-assisted material before including it in a manuscript. Particular attention should be given to:

  • mathematical statements, definitions, theorems, and proofs;

  • calculations and numerical results;

  • computer code and algorithms;

  • references and citations;

  • quotations and factual statements;

  • figures, diagrams, and tables; and

  • interpretations and conclusions.

Authors must not assume that information generated by GenAI is correct simply because it appears plausible or authoritative.

Where GenAI is used as part of the research methodology, for example, in coding, computational analysis, numerical experiments, or other substantive research activities, the authors should describe its use with sufficient detail to allow appropriate scholarly assessment and, where relevant, reproducibility.

Disclosure of GenAI Use

Authors must disclose substantive use of GenAI in the preparation of a manuscript or in the research reported in it.

The disclosure should identify the GenAI tool or service used, the purpose for which it was used, and the nature of its contribution.

Basic tools used solely for conventional spelling, grammar, or punctuation checking do not normally require disclosure. However, where GenAI generates, substantially rewrites, summarizes, translates, analyzes, codes, or otherwise makes a substantive contribution to manuscript content or the research process, its use should be disclosed.

Where GenAI is used as part of the research methodology, the use should also be described in the appropriate methodological section of the manuscript.

A suitable declaration may be:

Declaration of GenAI Use:
“During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [NAME OF TOOL/SERVICE] for [PURPOSE]. The author(s) subsequently reviewed and verified the output, revised the material as necessary, and take full responsibility for the content of the manuscript.”

The editors may request additional information regarding the use of GenAI where this is necessary to assess the originality, reliability, transparency, or reproducibility of the work.

GenAI and Authorship

JME does not accept GenAI tools or systems as authors or co-authors.

Authorship is restricted to human contributors who can take responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the work, approve the final version, respond to questions concerning the work, disclose relevant conflicts of interest, and fulfil applicable copyright and licensing responsibilities.

GenAI systems cannot fulfil these responsibilities. Human authors therefore remain fully accountable for all GenAI-assisted material contained in a manuscript.

GenAI should not be cited as an author or used as a substitute for the original scholarly sources supporting a statement. Authors are responsible for identifying, verifying, and appropriately citing the relevant original sources.

GenAI-Generated or GenAI-Modified Figures and Other Content

Authors are responsible for ensuring that any figure, diagram, illustration, table, mathematical representation, computer code, or other content created or modified with GenAI is accurate, appropriate, and does not misrepresent the underlying research.

Where GenAI is used substantively to create or modify such material, this use should be disclosed in an appropriate location, such as the figure caption, methodological description, or GenAI declaration.

GenAI must not be used to fabricate or deceptively manipulate figures, mathematical representations, numerical results, data, or other material presented as scholarly evidence.

Authors are also responsible for ensuring that they have the necessary rights to use and publish GenAI-generated or modified material and that its inclusion does not infringe copyright, intellectual property, privacy, or other rights.

GenAI Malpractice by Authors

Examples of inappropriate GenAI use by authors include:

  • submitting substantial GenAI-generated scholarly content without appropriate human intellectual contribution and verification;

  • submitting mathematical proofs, results, calculations, or code produced by GenAI without independently checking their correctness;

  • including nonexistent or fabricated references suggested by GenAI;

  • using GenAI to create or manipulate results in a misleading manner;

  • disguising plagiarism or inappropriate reuse of existing material through GenAI-based rewriting;

  • failing to disclose substantive GenAI use when required;

  • attributing responsibility for errors or misconduct to a GenAI system; or

  • using confidential or restricted information in a GenAI system without appropriate authorization.

Authors remain responsible for any such conduct regardless of the GenAI tool used.

4. Use of GenAI by Reviewers

Manuscripts submitted to JME are confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers must protect the confidentiality, intellectual property, and unpublished work of authors throughout the peer-review process.

Reviewers must not upload a submitted manuscript, substantial excerpts from it, unpublished mathematical results, proofs, figures, tables, supplementary material, author information, or confidential editorial correspondence into an external GenAI system where confidentiality, privacy, data retention, and intellectual property protection cannot be assured.

GenAI must not replace the reviewer's own scholarly assessment, mathematical judgement, critical reasoning, or recommendation to the editor.

The reviewer must personally evaluate matters such as originality, mathematical correctness, methodology, significance, clarity, and contribution to the field. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, integrity, and content of their review reports.

GenAI may be used in a limited supporting capacity where manuscript confidentiality is not compromised. For example, it may assist with improving the language or organization of a reviewer's own report or with a general background literature search that does not require disclosure of confidential manuscript information.

Substantive use of GenAI in preparing a review report should be disclosed to the editor. Basic spelling, grammar, and punctuation checking does not normally require disclosure.

GenAI Malpractice by Reviewers

Reviewers must not:

  • upload confidential manuscripts or manuscript content to GenAI systems where appropriate confidentiality cannot be assured;

  • use GenAI as a substitute for personally reading and evaluating the manuscript;

  • submit a GenAI-generated review without independent scholarly assessment and verification;

  • use GenAI to appropriate, develop, or exploit unpublished ideas, proofs, methods, or results obtained through peer review;

  • use GenAI to generate misleading, fabricated, or unsupported criticism of a manuscript; or

  • use GenAI in any manner intended to manipulate the peer-review process.

Responsibility for the review and recommendation remains with the human reviewer.

5. Use of GenAI by Editors

Editors and members of the JME editorial team must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, author information, editorial correspondence, and other unpublished material.

Editors must not upload submitted manuscripts or other confidential editorial material into an external GenAI system where confidentiality, privacy, data retention, and intellectual property protection cannot be assured.

GenAI may support limited administrative or editorial activities, provided that confidentiality is preserved and meaningful human oversight is maintained. Such use must not compromise editorial independence, fairness, or the integrity of the peer-review process.

GenAI must not replace editorial judgement. Decisions concerning whether a manuscript falls within the scope of JME, the suitability and selection of reviewers, interpretation of reviewer reports, assessment of scholarly quality and originality, requests for revision, acceptance, and rejection require human editorial judgement.

Editors remain fully responsible and accountable for editorial assessments, decisions, and communications.

GenAI-generated assessments must not be treated as definitive evidence of plagiarism, mathematical error, poor research quality, or publication misconduct. Concerns identified using automated or GenAI-assisted systems must be evaluated by appropriately qualified human editors or experts.

GenAI Malpractice by Editors

Editors must not:

  • disclose confidential manuscript or reviewer information to GenAI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured;

  • delegate acceptance or rejection decisions to GenAI;

  • rely solely on GenAI to assess mathematical correctness, originality, research integrity, or alleged misconduct;

  • use confidential ideas, results, proofs, or other information obtained through manuscripts for personal or academic advantage;

  • use GenAI in a manner that creates unfair bias or compromises the independence of editorial decisions; or

  • use GenAI to fabricate, alter, or misrepresent reviewer comments or editorial assessments.

Final editorial responsibility always remains with the human editor.

6. Use of GenAI by the Editorial Office and Publisher

Where GenAI or AI-assisted technologies are used by the JME Editorial Office or publisher for administrative, technical, production, or publication-support activities, their use must be subject to appropriate human oversight and must respect confidentiality, privacy, copyright, and intellectual property requirements.

GenAI should not be used to make independent scholarly or editorial decisions.

Any future use of GenAI within journal production processes should be implemented in a manner that protects confidential material and preserves the accuracy and integrity of the published scholarly record.

7. Review of This Policy

GenAI technologies and standards for their use in scholarly publishing continue to develop. JME will periodically review this policy and may revise it in response to developments in technology, research integrity, publication ethics, legal requirements, and recognized international scholarly-publishing practices.

Authors, reviewers, editors, and other participants in the JME publication process are expected to consult and comply with the current version of this policy.