Generative AI Policy

DAAR EL-KAMIL: Multidisciplinary Journal recognizes that generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools and large language models offer real opportunities for scholarly communication, while also creating new risks for research integrity, transparency, and accountability. Guided by the STM Association's 2023 White Paper on Generative AI in Scholarly Communications and the COPE Position Statement on Authorship and AI Tools, the journal sets out the following policy for manuscript preparation, peer review, editorial decision-making, and post-publication activities.

Acceptable AI Use and Responsibilities for Authors

Authors may use GenAI tools for basic language and formatting tasks, such as grammar correction, style consistency, translation support, and reference formatting, without disclosure, provided the tool does not change the intellectual content or conceptual contribution of the work.

Any substantive use of GenAI must be disclosed. This includes generating text, analyzing data, creating figures or images, or influencing the study's design or interpretation. The disclosure should appear in a dedicated "AI Contributions" statement in the Methods or Acknowledgments section. It must name the tool, its version, and its provider, and describe exactly how it was used.

GenAI tools cannot be listed as authors because they cannot take responsibility for scholarly claims. Human authors remain fully accountable for the accuracy, originality, and proper citation of all content, including AI-assisted content. This includes verifying that AI-generated references, quotations, data, and interpretations of Qur'anic verses, Hadith, and classical Islamic sources are authentic and correctly cited.

Editorial and Peer Review Protocols

Editors and reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts under review.

  • Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts to public GenAI platforms or use them to write review reports.
  • Editors must not use public GenAI platforms for plagiarism checks, confidentiality checks, or automated decisions. Editors may use specialized, publisher-approved AI services only under formal agreements that safeguard confidentiality and data security.
  • All final editorial decisions are made by humans. AI output is informational only.
  • A reviewer who suspects undisclosed substantial AI use must report it to the handling editor.

Scholarly Transparency

Readers are discouraged from submitting full-text articles from this journal to public AI models, in order to protect authors' intellectual property and unpublished data. Published articles with substantial AI-assisted contributions will carry a note stating the extent of AI involvement.

Monitoring and Revisions

Compliance will be monitored through periodic checks of published content. Undisclosed or inappropriate AI use may be handled under the journal's misconduct procedures, following COPE guidance, and may lead to corrections, retractions, or other action. This policy will be reviewed at least every two years, or sooner if there are significant technological or ethical developments.