Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) Policy

LEGAL BRIEF recognizes the potential benefits of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) and AI-assisted technologies in scholarly research and academic publishing. The journal supports responsible, transparent, and ethical use of these technologies while maintaining human accountability, academic integrity, confidentiality, and the reliability of published research.

This policy applies to authors, reviewers, editors, and other parties involved in the submission, peer-review, editorial, and publication processes of LEGAL BRIEF. It is informed by relevant Elsevier guidance on generative AI in scholarly publishing and Scopus recommendations concerning transparency in the use of generative AI.

1. General Principles

Generative AI tools may be used for appropriate scholarly purposes, provided that their use does not compromise research integrity, originality, confidentiality, intellectual property rights, or the quality of the manuscript.

Human authors remain fully responsible for the content of their manuscripts, including the accuracy of factual statements, legal arguments, research findings, references, citations, and conclusions.

AI tools must not replace the authors' intellectual contribution, independent critical thinking, legal reasoning, or professional judgment.

The use of generative AI does not automatically constitute misconduct. However, undisclosed or inappropriate use that misrepresents authorship, fabricates evidence, compromises confidentiality, or undermines scholarly integrity may constitute a violation of this policy.

2. Use of Gen AI by Authors

Authors may use generative AI tools to assist with appropriate manuscript-preparation activities, including literature exploration, idea development, content organization, summarization, language improvement, readability, translation, and the preparation of explanatory illustrations.

Authors must critically review, verify, and edit AI-generated content before incorporating it into a manuscript. Authors remain responsible for ensuring that the final work represents their own scholarly analysis, interpretation, and intellectual contribution.

Authors must verify the accuracy, completeness, relevance, and impartiality of AI-generated information. Particular care must be taken when AI tools are used to identify research gaps, summarize legal scholarship, or formulate legal arguments.

The use of AI tools must comply with applicable copyright, data protection, confidentiality, and intellectual property requirements. Authors must review the terms and conditions of the relevant tools before submitting unpublished, confidential, personal, or restricted information.

3. Disclosure of Gen AI Use

Authors must disclose substantive use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in the preparation of a manuscript. The disclosure must identify the tool used, explain its purpose, and describe the nature of its contribution.

The disclosure must be included in a separate section entitled "Declaration of Generative AI Use", placed immediately before the references, unless the journal's submission instructions specify another location.

Routine spelling, grammar, and punctuation checks that do not generate or substantially alter scholarly content do not require disclosure. However, substantive AI-assisted rewriting, content generation, literature synthesis, or other meaningful contributions must be disclosed.

Authors may use the following declaration when applicable:

When Gen AI has been used:

"During the preparation of this manuscript, the author(s) used [name of AI tool] for [specific purpose]. The author(s) critically reviewed, verified, and revised the AI-assisted content and take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and final content of the manuscript."

When Gen AI has not been used:

"The author(s) declare that no generative artificial intelligence tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript."

If AI tools are used as part of the research methodology, including research design, data collection, data processing, analysis, or interpretation, their use must also be described in the Methodology or Methods section in sufficient detail to support transparency and reproducibility.

4. Gen AI in Legal Research and Analysis

Because LEGAL BRIEF publishes research in law, authors must exercise particular care when using AI tools to support legal research, statutory interpretation, judicial decision analysis, comparative law, and legal-policy evaluation.

Authors must independently verify all AI-assisted legal information against reliable and authoritative sources, including:

  1. Legislation and regulations issued by the relevant authorities.

  2. Court judgments and judicial decisions.

  3. Official legal documents and institutional publications.

  4. Scholarly books, journal articles, and other verifiable academic references.

  5. Relevant legal doctrines, principles, and authoritative interpretations.

AI-generated legal citations, case numbers, statutory provisions, quotations, references, and other legal authorities must not be accepted without verification.

Authors must not present fabricated legal authorities, inaccurate quotations, unsupported legal interpretations, or AI-generated arguments as established law or verified research findings.

The responsibility for the accuracy, validity, interpretation, and application of legal sources rests entirely with the authors.

5. Gen AI and Authorship

Generative AI tools, chatbots, and other AI systems cannot be listed as authors or co-authors of manuscripts submitted to LEGAL BRIEF.

Authorship requires human intellectual contribution, approval of the final manuscript, and accountability for the integrity of the work. AI systems cannot independently assume these responsibilities.

All listed authors must meet the journal's Authorship Criteria and accept responsibility for their respective contributions.

AI-assisted content must not be presented in a manner that misrepresents the authors' intellectual contribution or conceals the origin of substantive material.

6. Gen AI and Images, Figures, and Illustrations

Authors may use generative AI tools to prepare explanatory illustrations, conceptual diagrams, flowcharts, timelines, and other visual materials that support the communication of scholarly ideas, provided that their use is appropriate, disclosed where required, and does not misrepresent evidence.

AI-generated or AI-altered visual materials must not be used to fabricate, falsify, or deceptively manipulate research evidence, data, legal documents, judicial decisions, or other materials presented as authentic.

Images representing primary research observations or experimental data must not be generated or altered using generative AI in ways that misrepresent the underlying evidence.

Where AI is used to create or materially modify a figure or illustration, the use must be disclosed in the relevant figure caption and, where applicable, in the manuscript's Declaration of Generative AI Use.

AI-generated images must comply with applicable copyright, licensing, privacy, and intellectual property requirements. Any visual material presented as an authentic legal document or evidentiary record must be genuine and independently verifiable.

7. Gen AI in Peer Review

Manuscripts submitted to LEGAL BRIEF are confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, any part of a manuscript, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, or related confidential materials to public or external generative AI tools.

Reviewers must not use generative AI to perform or replace the substantive evaluation of a manuscript. Peer review requires independent human judgment, subject expertise, critical assessment, and accountability.

Reviewers must personally assess the originality, relevance, methodology, legal reasoning, accuracy of references, and scholarly contribution of the manuscript.

Any suspected research misconduct, fabricated legal authority, plagiarism, or other serious concern must be reported to the editorial office through the appropriate confidential channel.

8. Gen AI in Editorial Decision-Making

Editors must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts, author information, reviewer identities, peer-review reports, and editorial communications.

Editors must not upload submitted manuscripts or confidential editorial materials to generative AI tools. Generative AI must not replace the editor's substantive assessment of a manuscript or determine editorial decisions without independent human evaluation.

Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit, originality, relevance, research integrity, legal accuracy, and compliance with the journal's editorial policies.

The Editor-in-Chief and editorial team remain responsible for the fairness, independence, and integrity of editorial decisions.

9. Prohibited Uses of Gen AI

The following uses of generative AI are prohibited:

  1. Fabricating or falsifying research data, legal authorities, judicial decisions, quotations, references, or research findings.

  2. Presenting unverified AI-generated information as accurate or authoritative scholarly evidence.

  3. Using AI to conceal plagiarism, misrepresent authorship, or disguise the origin of substantive scholarly content.

  4. Using AI-generated material to manipulate research results, legal evidence, or visual representations of data.

  5. Uploading confidential manuscripts, unpublished research, personal data, or restricted information to AI tools in violation of confidentiality, privacy, or intellectual property obligations.

  6. Using AI to fabricate peer-review reports, reviewer identities, author contributions, or other publication records.

  7. Using AI-generated citations without verifying the existence, accuracy, and relevance of the cited sources.

  8. Misrepresenting the extent, purpose, or nature of AI use in a manuscript or during the publication process.

These restrictions do not prohibit legitimate, transparent, and appropriately supervised uses of AI that comply with this policy.

10. Assessment of Violations

LEGAL BRIEF may assess suspected violations of this policy before or after publication.

The editorial team may request clarification, supporting documentation, source verification, or other relevant information from the authors when reasonable concerns arise.

Depending on the seriousness and evidence of a violation, the journal may request revisions, reject a manuscript, issue a correction, publish an Expression of Concern, retract a published article, or take other appropriate action in accordance with its publication ethics policies.

Allegations will be assessed fairly and proportionately. The use of generative AI alone does not establish research misconduct; the journal will consider the circumstances, disclosure, accuracy, confidentiality, intellectual contribution, and impact on the integrity of the scholarly record.

11. Policy Review and Implementation

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for implementing this policy and ensuring that the use of generative AI is assessed consistently and transparently throughout the publication process.

LEGAL BRIEF may revise this policy in response to developments in AI technology, scholarly publishing standards, applicable legal requirements, and relevant guidance from recognized publication ethics organizations.

Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to comply with this policy and any applicable supplementary instructions published by the journal.

Policy responsibility: Editor-in-Chief, LEGAL BRIEF
Publisher: Ihsa Institute