Generative AI Policy

Abdiformatika: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat Informatika (Abdiformatika) recognizes the growing role of generative artificial intelligence (Generative AI) and AI-assisted technologies in scholarly communication, digital innovation, and community empowerment. These technologies may support manuscript preparation, software development, educational activities, information processing, and the implementation of technology-based community service programs.

As a scholarly journal focusing on community service in informatics and information and communication technology (ICT), Abdiformatika encourages the responsible use of digital technologies that contribute to knowledge transfer, digital literacy, community capacity building, and practical solutions to societal needs. However, the use of generative AI must not compromise scientific integrity, originality, transparency, community participation, data protection, or the reliability of reported outcomes.

This policy is informed by the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and establishes expectations for authors, editors, and reviewers concerning the ethical and responsible use of generative AI. It complements the journal's Author Guidelines, Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, and other applicable editorial policies.

1. General Principles and Human Accountability

Generative AI tools may assist authors in preparing scholarly manuscripts and implementing technology-based community service activities. Nevertheless, AI must remain a supporting technology rather than a substitute for human intellectual contributions, professional judgment, ethical responsibility, or direct community engagement.

Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, validity, and integrity of their submitted manuscripts, including any text, software code, illustrations, analyses, or other materials generated or modified using AI-assisted technologies.

Generative AI tools, large language models, chatbots, and other automated systems cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. These technologies cannot assume responsibility for scholarly work, approve manuscripts for publication, disclose conflicts of interest, or fulfill the ethical and legal obligations associated with academic authorship.

All human authors must be able to explain and defend the design, implementation, evaluation, findings, and conclusions of their community service activities, regardless of whether generative AI was involved.

2. Permitted Uses of Generative AI in Manuscript Preparation

Abdiformatika permits the responsible use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies to support manuscript preparation, provided that authors maintain meaningful human oversight and comply with the journal's originality and publication ethics requirements.

Permissible applications may include:

• Language and Writing Assistance: Improving grammatical accuracy, readability, sentence structure, and clarity of academic writing.
• Brainstorming and Manuscript Organization: Supporting idea exploration, preparation of outlines, and organization of manuscript sections.
• Drafting and Summarization: Assisting with initial drafts, paraphrasing, and literature summaries, provided that authors verify the information and consult original sources.
• Programming and Technical Assistance: Supporting software development, debugging, code documentation, and technical preparation for technology-based community service programs.
• Data Processing and Evaluation: Assisting with data organization, descriptive analysis, evaluation of program outcomes, and preparation of supporting visualizations, subject to validation.
• Educational Materials: Assisting in developing training modules, instructional materials, presentations, tutorials, or other resources intended for community education and capacity building.

All AI-assisted materials must be reviewed to ensure their accuracy, relevance, originality, and suitability for the intended academic or community context.

Routine spelling, grammar, punctuation, and formatting checks that do not generate substantive scholarly content do not require a separate AI use declaration. However, substantive AI-generated writing, analytical contributions, or other material assistance must be appropriately disclosed.

3. Generative AI in Community Service Activities

Abdiformatika recognizes that generative AI may be employed as a technology, training resource, or implementation tool in community service activities. Its application should address clearly identified community needs and demonstrate relevant practical benefits.

Relevant applications may include:

• Digital Literacy and AI Education: Training community members, teachers, students, or professionals to use generative AI responsibly.
• Educational Technology: Developing AI-assisted learning materials, digital educational content, and interactive learning resources.
• Community Information Services: Implementing AI-assisted chatbots, information systems, or automated communication tools to support community services.
• MSME and Entrepreneurship Support: Assisting community enterprises with digital marketing, business content, product descriptions, and other technology-based business activities.
• Community Capacity Building: Supporting practical workshops, vocational training, digital skills, and technology adoption programs.
• Technology Development and Implementation: Integrating generative AI into software applications, digital platforms, or appropriate technologies designed to address community needs.

When generative AI is part of a community service intervention, authors must clearly describe its role in the activity, the intended beneficiaries, the implementation procedures, and the methods used to evaluate its effectiveness and outcomes.

Authors should report actual community participation and documented outcomes, including improvements in knowledge, skills, productivity, service quality, or other relevant indicators. AI-generated examples or simulated results must not be presented as evidence of activities that were not conducted.

The use of generative AI does not automatically establish the effectiveness or novelty of a community service program. Claims of impact must be supported by appropriate observations, evaluations, participant feedback, or other verifiable evidence.

4. Transparency and AI Use Declaration

Authors must disclose the substantive use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in manuscript preparation, community service implementation, data processing, or evaluation activities.

The disclosure should identify:

• The name of the AI tool or service, its provider, and the model or version where available.
• The specific purpose for which the AI tool was used.
• The manuscript sections, research procedures, or community service activities involving AI assistance.
• The extent of AI involvement and the verification or validation performed by the authors.

4.1. Declaration for Manuscript Preparation

When generative AI is used to produce or substantively revise manuscript text, authors must include a declaration under the heading "Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies" before the References section.

4.2. Disclosure of AI in Community Service Methods

When generative AI is incorporated into community service activities, software applications, training programs, or evaluation procedures, authors must describe its use in the Methods or Implementation section.

The description should explain the AI tool's function, relevant procedures, implementation context, human supervision, and methods used to assess the accuracy, effectiveness, or reliability of its outputs.

Authors should provide sufficient methodological information to allow readers to understand how the technology was implemented and how the reported community outcomes were evaluated. A general declaration alone does not replace the need for transparent reporting of AI-assisted implementation methods.

5. Accuracy, Research Integrity, and Community Protection

Generative AI systems may produce convincing but inaccurate information, fabricated references, biased content, misleading recommendations, or unreliable technical outputs. Authors must evaluate these risks before incorporating AI-assisted materials into scholarly manuscripts or community service activities.

Authors must observe the following requirements:

• Accuracy and Verification: Verify factual statements, technical information, generated content, and analytical results against reliable evidence.
• Reference Integrity: Ensure that cited sources exist, are accurately represented, and support the statements made in the manuscript.
• Originality and Attribution: Avoid plagiarism, inappropriate text reuse, and unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted materials.
• Authenticity of Community Activities: Do not fabricate training sessions, participant attendance, community involvement, implementation activities, or intervention outcomes.
• Evaluation Integrity: Do not generate fictitious questionnaires, participant responses, evaluation scores, photographs, or other evidence to misrepresent program results.
• Software and Technical Validation: Review AI-generated code, digital applications, and technical solutions for functionality, security, reliability, and suitability for the target community.
• Community Privacy and Consent: Protect personal information, confidential records, and sensitive community data. Obtain appropriate consent and authorization when required.
• Bias and Accessibility: Consider potential bias, language limitations, digital literacy differences, and accessibility barriers that may affect community members.
• Human Oversight: Maintain appropriate supervision of AI-assisted activities, especially where inaccurate outputs may affect community safety, welfare, or important decisions.

Community participants should not be misled about the nature of AI-assisted interventions when such information is relevant to their participation or informed decision-making. Authors should take reasonable measures to communicate the purposes, limitations, and potential risks of the technologies introduced.

AI-generated illustrations, synthetic examples, or simulated data must be clearly distinguished from authentic photographs, participant responses, observations, and other evidence collected during actual community service activities.

6. Responsibilities of Editors and Reviewers

Editors and reviewers must maintain confidentiality, impartiality, and independent scholarly judgment throughout manuscript evaluation. Submitted manuscripts, unpublished activity records, participant information, and editorial correspondence must be handled as confidential material.

Editors and reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, or private editorial information to publicly accessible generative AI services without appropriate authorization and safeguards protecting confidentiality, intellectual property, and personal information.

AI tools must not replace the scientific judgment of peer reviewers or the editorial decision-making responsibilities of editors. Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and quality of their assessments.

Where AI assistance in editorial or reviewing activities is expressly permitted, its use must remain consistent with journal confidentiality requirements and should be disclosed to the responsible editor.

Editors may request clarification or supporting documentation concerning AI-assisted content when legitimate concerns arise. Automated AI-detection results alone should not be regarded as conclusive evidence of publication misconduct.

7. Non-Compliance and Editorial Actions

Failure to comply with this policy may raise concerns regarding transparency, originality, research integrity, community protection, or the reliability of reported activities. Suspected violations will be evaluated according to their nature, seriousness, and the available evidence.

Depending on the findings, editorial actions may include:

• Requesting clarification about the use of AI tools.
• Requesting an appropriate AI use declaration or additional methodological details.
• Requiring manuscript revisions, further validation, or supporting documentation.
• Rejecting a manuscript when serious publication ethics violations are substantiated.
• Issuing a correction or clarification when appropriate after publication.
• Issuing an expression of concern or retraction when serious integrity concerns warrant such editorial action.

Editorial actions should be proportionate to the identified concern and supported by documented evidence. Authors should ordinarily have an opportunity to explain their use of AI and provide relevant supporting information before a final adverse determination is made.

Undisclosed AI assistance does not automatically establish fabrication, plagiarism, or another serious violation. Its significance should be evaluated in relation to the extent of AI involvement, its effect on the accuracy of the manuscript, and the reliability of the documented community service activities.

8. Policy Review and Further Information

Abdiformatika recognizes that generative AI technologies and their applications in scientific communication, education, software development, and community empowerment continue to evolve. This policy may be periodically reviewed and updated to reflect emerging technologies, ethical considerations, and developments in scholarly publishing standards.

Authors, editors, and reviewers are encouraged to consult the journal's Author Guidelines, Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, and relevant COPE guidance when using generative AI-assisted technologies.