Scientific Works «Adult Education: Theory, Experience, Prospects» recognises that artificial intelligence tools may be used as supporting tools in research, manuscript preparation, and editorial work. At the same time, the use of such tools must be transparent, responsible, ethically appropriate, and must not replace the responsibility of authors, reviewers, or editors.

This Policy sets the rules for the use of artificial intelligence tools by authors, reviewers, editors, and the editorial team of the journal.

For the purposes of this Policy, artificial intelligence tools include generative and non-generative digital systems, such as large language models, chatbots, machine translation systems, image generators, automated editing services, text analysis tools, summarising tools, coding tools, data-processing tools, and tools for creating visual materials.

This Policy has been developed with due regard to international ethical approaches to the use of artificial intelligence tools in scholarly publishing, including the recommendations of COPE on authorship, transparency, responsibility, and confidentiality in the editorial process.

1. General Principles

1.1. The use of AI tools in activities related to the preparation, review, editing, and publication of materials in the journal is allowed only as support, and not as an autonomous or decisive contribution.

1.2. Authors, reviewers, and editors must ensure academic integrity, confidentiality, reliability, and proper scholarly quality of all materials in the preparation or processing of which AI tools were used.

1.3. No AI tool may be listed as an author or co-author of a manuscript because it cannot take legal, ethical, or academic responsibility for the content of a publication.

1.4. Full responsibility for the content of the manuscript, the accuracy of facts, the validity of data, correct citation, proper referencing, the absence of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, and other breaches of academic integrity always belongs only to the author(s). Responsibility for review and editorial decisions belongs only to the people who perform these roles.

2. Use of AI by Authors

2.1. Permitted Use

Author(s) may use AI tools for:

• language and stylistic editing of the text;
• translation, followed by обязательной author checking and editing;
• technical structuring of the text, creating subheadings, and summarising draft ideas;
• technical help in formatting the reference list, tables, appendices, and descriptions, if the author has fully checked the result;
• supportive analytical help, including initial grouping of material, if all results were checked, reconsidered, and scientifically interpreted by the author;
• supportive processing of the author’s own data, code, or visualisations, if this is properly described in the manuscript and does not distort the research results.

2.2. Non-permitted Use

The following is not allowed:

• submitting to the journal a text that was fully or mainly generated by AI tools without proper author revision, critical checking, and scholarly interpretation;
• using AI to fabricate, falsify, or replace data, results, quotations, sources, statistical indicators, references, tables, or conclusions;
• including invented, invalid, or unchecked bibliographic sources, DOIs, URLs, quotations, or facts obtained with the help of AI;
• using AI to imitate scholarly argumentation or to create pseudo-analysis or pseudo-empirical results;
• hiding the fact that AI was used when such use had a meaningful impact on the preparation of the manuscript;
• transferring personal data, confidential, sensitive, official, or copyright-protected materials to external AI services without proper legal grounds and permissions.

2.3. Disclosure of AI Use by Authors

2.3.1. If AI tools were used only for language editing, translation, stylistic improvement, or technical structuring of the manuscript, the author(s) must state this at the end of the article in the section “Author Declarations” or in another special section defined by the journal.

2.3.2. If AI was used in the research process, including for data analysis, coding, creating or modifying visual materials, modelling, classification, or analytical processing, the author(s) must describe such use in the relevant section of the manuscript, especially in “Methods”, and, where necessary, also in figure captions, table notes, or author declarations.

2.3.3. The declaration must be clear and as specific as possible and should include:

• the name of the tool;
• the model / service / provider;
• the version or date of access;
• the purpose of use;
• the stage at which the tool was used.

2.3.4. Examples of correct wording:

“In the preparation of this manuscript, the author(s) used [tool name, model, version] only for language editing and stylistic improvement of the text. All scholarly statements, interpretations, conclusions, and the final version of the text belong to the author(s), who take full responsibility for the content of the article”.

“In the research process, the author(s) used [tool name, model, version] for supportive processing / classification / visualisation of the author’s own data. The parameters of such use are described in the ‘Methods’ section. All results were checked and interpreted by the author(s), who take full responsibility for the reliability of the material”.

2.3.5. If AI tools were not used, the author(s) may state:

“No artificial intelligence tools were used in the preparation of this article”.

3. Use of AI-Generated Images, Figures, Schemes, and Visual Materials

3.1. The journal does not accept for publication images, photo illustrations, artistic visualisations, and other similar materials generated by generative AI unless they have a direct scholarly justification.

3.2. Exceptions are possible only in cases where:

• the image is itself the subject of the research;
• the visual material is created on the basis of verified scholarly data and has a scholarly, not decorative, function;
• the material is clearly marked as created or modified with the use of AI;
• the editorial office has separately approved such use.

3.3. Text-and-number elements, diagrams, flowcharts, graphs, and other analytical visualisations are not considered prohibited if they are based on verified author data, properly described in the manuscript, and accompanied by appropriate disclosure of AI use, where applicable.

4. Use of AI by Reviewers

4.1. Reviewers must not upload the full manuscript, its parts, appendices, figures, tables, data, or the text of their review or editorial correspondence to public or third-party generative AI services.

4.2. Reviewers must not use generative AI for:

• analysing the manuscript in substance;
• forming scholarly comments;
• writing, editing, or paraphrasing the review;
• making a recommendation to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript.

4.3. Expert evaluation of the manuscript must be the result of the reviewer’s own academic competence and not of an automated AI output.

4.4. If a reviewer has doubts about whether a certain tool may be used, the reviewer must contact the editorial office before using it.

5. Use of AI by Editors and the Editorial Team

5.1. Editors and members of the editorial office must not upload confidential materials related to a manuscript to public or third-party generative AI services. This includes:

• submitted manuscripts;
• reviews;
• cover letters;
• editorial correspondence;
• personal data of authors and reviewers;
• internal editorial information.

5.2. The editorial office may use technical, analytical, or institutionally protected digital tools for:

• initial technical screening of manuscripts;
• checking formatting;
• identifying text anomalies;
• supporting editorial administration;
• searching for potential reviewers;
• checking compliance with formal requirements.

5.3. Any such tools have only a supportive role and must not replace editorial evaluation.

5.4. The final decision on a manuscript - acceptance, revision, or rejection - is made only by the editor or the editorial board, and not by an automated system.

6. Responsibility and Response to Breaches

6.1. If undisclosed or improper use of AI is found and it affects the scholarly quality, reliability, originality, or ethical acceptability of the material, the editorial office has the right to:

• request an explanation from the author(s);
• require correction of the declaration or the manuscript text;
• return the manuscript for revision;
• reject the manuscript;
• start an editorial investigation;
• after publication, publish a correction, editorial notice, expression of concern, or retract the article in line with the journal’s policies.

6.2. If the breach is connected with a reviewer or editor, the editorial office will take internal measures in accordance with the journal’s ethical policies.

6.3. If there are well-grounded concerns, reports, or complaints about non-transparent, unethical, or unacceptable use of AI tools in the preparation of a manuscript, such cases are reviewed in accordance with the Policy for the Handling of Complaints on Breaches of Academic Integrity and Publication Ethics.

7. Final Provisions

7.1. This Policy is applied together with the Publication Ethics Policy, Conflict of Interest Policy, Peer Review Policy, Policy on Citation Manipulation and Self-Citation, and other editorial documents of the journal.

7.2. If there is any doubt about whether a certain way of using AI is acceptable, authors, reviewers, and editors should contact the editorial office in advance for clarification.

7.3. The editorial office reserves the right to update this Policy in line with the development of international standards of scholarly communication and ethical recommendations.

7.4. In case of doubt regarding the permissibility of a specific use of AI in preparing the manuscript, authors are encouraged to contact the Editorial Board of the UNESCO Chair Journal for clarification via the following email address: zbirnyk_od_17@ukr.net