IA Polices

Encuentros, journal of Human Sciences, Social Theory and Critical Thinking, aligns itself with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Heredia Declaration, which recognize the responsible use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in research processes as a support tool whose use must be evidenced and made transparent for a clear, traceable, and reproducible exercise of knowledge. Among the aspects considered in the Heredia Declaration regarding the different roles in the editorial process are:

Authorship

The role of authorship is exclusive to human beings, who create, make decisions, and assume responsibility for the works generated. AI tools (language models, chatbots, generative AI) cannot be listed as authors or co-authors, since they do not fully assume these responsibilities, nor are they responsible for the existence or absence of conflicts of interest, nor do they manage copyright or usage licenses for the works.

Authors must explicitly declare whether or not they use AI in their research and scientific writing processes at any stage of the scientific publication process. Failure to do so may result in the rejection or retraction of the publication.

If AI is used, the declaration must be included at the end of the document, specifying:

- The AI ​​model used, its version, and the date of use.

- Specific tasks performed in each section of the document with human review: improving writing, grammar correction, style, text translation, generation of images, tables, graphs, and any other resources.

- Methods for verifying and validating the results generated by the AI, as well as the authors responsible for this process: data, citations, tables, translations, etc.

Authors are responsible for any violation of editorial ethics; therefore, they must ensure that the use of AI does not infringe on the rights of third parties or violate licenses or terms of service.

Review

The responsibility for the criteria used to recommend or not the publication of a scientific text—or to propose corrections and improvements—lies with the reviewer. Interaction with AI does not replace their expert judgment or accountability.

When AI has been incorporated as a complement to the review process, it is necessary to inform the editorial team and, through them, the authors. Indicating, at a minimum, the model name, version, date of use, and the evaluation instructions is part of a transparent and traceable content evaluation process.

Reviewers must be able to explain their interaction with AI, what input they received, and how much of that input was considered in the observations, comments, recommendations, and correction requests they issued as evaluation criteria for the scientific text.

Editing

The editor and the editorial team are responsible for the editing process. The use of AI should not replace human responsibility or accountability when performing editing tasks or monitoring the actions of reviewers and authors. The editing of scientific texts should not depend on the use of AI.

Editors will provide evidence when they have used AI at any point in the editorial process. The model name, version, date of use, and assigned task will be reported.

Prevention strategies will be established to avoid the spread of bias, misinformation, or situations where respect for or ethical handling of personal data cannot be guaranteed. Furthermore, the use of open, high-quality, reliable data, supported by consent or authorizations that allow AI to make legitimate use of such information, will be promoted.

Authors and readers will be informed when, in the interest of transparency, editorial or review tasks have relied on the use of AI.

NOTE: Authors, reviewers, and editors are solely responsible for reviewing, verifying, and correcting any AI-generated results to avoid bias, errors, or falsehoods. Maintaining objectivity and editorial quality is recommended.