Power, Control, and Data Processing Systems (PCDP) recognizes the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI), including generative AI technologies, in academic research and scholarly publishing. The journal supports the responsible, transparent, and ethical use of AI tools while maintaining the principles of research integrity, authorship, accountability, confidentiality, and transparency.
This policy is based on relevant recommendations and principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is intended to provide clear guidance to authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff regarding the appropriate use of AI in the publication process.
Artificial intelligence tools may assist researchers and authors in certain aspects of scholarly work; however, AI systems cannot assume human responsibility for research or publication.
The use of AI must not compromise:
research integrity;
originality and academic authorship;
accuracy and reliability of published information;
confidentiality;
intellectual property and copyright;
transparency in scholarly communication; or
the independent judgment of authors, reviewers, and editors.
Authors, reviewers, and editors remain responsible for complying with all applicable ethical and publication requirements regardless of whether AI tools have been used.
AI systems, including generative AI tools such as ChatGPT and other similar applications, cannot be listed as authors or co-authors of manuscripts submitted to PCDP.
Authorship requires substantial intellectual contribution and the ability to take responsibility for the content of the work. AI systems cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, originality, or ethical aspects of a manuscript and therefore cannot meet the requirements for authorship.
All authors listed on a manuscript must be human researchers who meet the journal's authorship requirements and accept responsibility for the work.
AI tools may be acknowledged as tools used during the research or manuscript preparation process, where appropriate, but they must not be presented as authors.
Authors may use generative AI and other AI-assisted technologies for limited and appropriate purposes, such as:
improving grammar, spelling, and language;
improving readability and clarity;
translation assistance;
assisting with formatting or organization of text;
generating ideas or assisting with preliminary brainstorming; and
other forms of editorial or technical assistance that do not replace the authors' intellectual contribution.
The use of AI must not replace the authors' responsibility for the scientific conception, analysis, interpretation, conclusions, or intellectual contribution of the manuscript.
Authors must carefully review and verify all AI-assisted output before submission.
Authors must disclose the use of generative AI or other AI-assisted technologies when such use has materially contributed to the preparation of the manuscript.
The disclosure should specify:
the name of the AI tool or system used;
the version or model, where available;
the purpose for which the tool was used; and
the relevant part or parts of the manuscript affected by its use, where applicable.
A suitable disclosure statement may be included in the manuscript under an appropriate heading such as "Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Writing Process."
Routine use of standard spelling, grammar, reference-management, or formatting software that does not generate substantive content generally does not require a specific disclosure. However, authors remain responsible for the final manuscript.
Authors remain fully responsible for all content submitted to and published by PCDP, regardless of whether that content was produced or assisted by an AI system.
Authors must independently verify AI-assisted content, including:
factual statements;
mathematical expressions;
scientific interpretations;
statistical analyses;
technical information;
references and citations;
quotations;
tables;
figures; and
conclusions.
AI systems may generate inaccurate, incomplete, biased, or fabricated information, including nonexistent or incorrect references. Authors are therefore responsible for checking all AI-assisted material before submission.
The use of an AI tool does not relieve authors of responsibility for plagiarism, inappropriate citation, copyright infringement, fabrication, falsification, or any other form of research or publication misconduct.
Authors must disclose the use of generative AI tools to create or substantially modify images, figures, diagrams, or other visual materials when such use is permitted.
AI-generated images must not be presented as genuine experimental, observational, clinical, or research data.
Authors must ensure that the use of AI-generated or AI-modified visual materials complies with:
copyright and licensing requirements;
intellectual property rights;
research integrity principles;
applicable ethical requirements; and
the policies of the journal and relevant institutions.
The journal reserves the right to request clarification regarding the origin or production process of submitted figures and images.
AI-generated or AI-simulated data must not be presented as actual experimental, observational, or empirical data.
Where AI or machine-learning methods are themselves part of the research methodology, their use must be described transparently and sufficiently to enable readers to understand the methodology and, where appropriate, reproduce the research.
Authors should clearly distinguish between:
data generated through legitimate computational or simulation methods as part of the research; and
content or data generated by AI tools for assistance in writing or presentation.
Fabrication or falsification of data through AI tools constitutes research misconduct.
Peer reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all manuscripts, unpublished research, data, figures, tables, supplementary materials, and other information received during the peer-review process.
Reviewers must not upload or submit confidential manuscript content to publicly accessible generative AI tools or other AI systems if doing so could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, privacy, or the integrity of the peer-review process.
Reviewers should not use AI systems to generate substantive parts of confidential peer-review reports where such use could compromise manuscript confidentiality or the independence of the review.
Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, relevance, originality, and confidentiality of their review reports.
If reviewers use AI-assisted tools for limited language or administrative assistance, they must ensure that no confidential manuscript information is disclosed to the AI system.
Editors and editorial staff may use AI-assisted technologies for appropriate administrative or technical purposes, provided that such use does not compromise:
manuscript confidentiality;
authors' intellectual property;
personal or sensitive information;
editorial independence;
fairness of the peer-review process; or
research integrity.
AI tools must not replace the independent editorial judgment of editors.
Decisions concerning peer review, acceptance, rejection, revision, publication ethics, or research misconduct must remain the responsibility of qualified human editors.
Editors and editorial staff must not enter confidential manuscript content or other protected information into AI systems where doing so would violate confidentiality or applicable data-protection requirements.
AI tools may assist editors with limited administrative or technical tasks; however, they must not independently determine whether a manuscript should be accepted, rejected, or sent for revision.
Editorial decisions must be based on appropriate scholarly assessment, peer review, journal policy, and the independent professional judgment of the responsible editor.
The use of AI must never undermine fairness, transparency, confidentiality, or editorial independence.
The use of AI does not constitute an alternative to proper citation or acknowledgment of sources.
Authors must not use AI tools to:
fabricate references;
generate or manipulate research data;
fabricate experimental results;
conceal plagiarism;
paraphrase copyrighted material in a manner that violates applicable rights;
misrepresent AI-generated content as original human scholarship; or
otherwise circumvent the journal's research integrity and publication ethics requirements.
Any suspected misconduct related to AI use may be investigated in accordance with the journal's publication ethics and research integrity procedures.
Authors are responsible for ensuring that submitted manuscripts and all associated materials comply with applicable copyright and intellectual property laws and with the journal's policies.
The use of AI-generated text, images, code, or other material does not automatically establish ownership or copyright in such material.
Authors must assess the terms and conditions of the AI tools they use and ensure that their use of such tools does not infringe the rights of third parties.
Authors, reviewers, and editors must not enter confidential, proprietary, personal, unpublished, or otherwise protected information into AI systems unless they have an appropriate legal and ethical basis for doing so and the use is consistent with applicable confidentiality and data-protection requirements.
Particular care must be taken with:
unpublished research data;
confidential peer-review material;
personal information;
patient or participant information;
proprietary institutional information; and
commercially sensitive material.
When AI, machine learning, large language models, or related computational methods constitute part of the actual research methodology, authors must describe their use clearly and accurately in the manuscript.
The description should be sufficiently detailed to allow readers to understand the role of the AI system in the research and, where applicable, to assess the reproducibility and reliability of the methodology.
Where relevant, authors should report:
the AI or machine-learning model used;
model version;
relevant parameters or settings;
training or input data;
data preprocessing procedures;
validation procedures;
evaluation metrics; and
other information necessary for understanding or reproducing the research.
If concerns arise after publication regarding undisclosed, inappropriate, misleading, or unethical use of AI, PCDP may request clarification or supporting information from the authors.
Where appropriate, the journal may investigate the matter under its publication ethics procedures and may take corrective action, including publication of a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other appropriate action.
Such decisions will be made in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies and relevant principles of publication ethics.
The use of AI does not exempt authors, reviewers, editors, or editorial staff from complying with the other policies of PCDP, including policies concerning:
authorship and contributorship;
plagiarism;
conflicts of interest;
research ethics;
peer review;
corrections and retractions;
copyright and licensing;
data availability; and
research integrity.
Artificial intelligence technologies and standards for their use in scholarly publishing are rapidly evolving. PCDP will periodically review and update this policy in accordance with developments in scholarly publishing, research integrity, applicable regulations, and relevant guidance from organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other recognized scholarly publishing organizations.
PCDP supports the responsible and transparent use of artificial intelligence as an assistive technology in scholarly communication. At the same time, the journal maintains that human authors, reviewers, and editors remain responsible for scholarly judgment, research integrity, confidentiality, and the accuracy and integrity of published work.
The use of AI should enhance scholarly work without replacing human accountability, critical evaluation, or independent scientific judgment.