Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools usage Guidelines
Artificial Intelligence and its developments in the so-called Large Language Model (LLM), Machine Learn, Generative Automation and ChatBots, such as ChatGPT (and derivatives such as Copilot and Grok); Google Gemini and Meta AI have spread socially and affected scientific practices; Taking as an example the integration of the Copilot engine into the text editing software Microsoft Word (in its most recent version) to generate automated summaries, suggestions or use of modifications in writing directly in the text during the typing process.
In this context, supported by studies and recommendations made by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Journal Alterjor stablishes the following guidelines related to the use of AI:
1. AI tools can be an auxiliary resource for the development of texts and scientific research. However, they have limitations, biases, and possible problems of objectivity and accuracy. Therefore, its use, in the preparation of manuscripts, must be done in a considered, critical and responsible manner: for example, by checking the validity of information and references provided, as well as by checking whether there is plagiarism in query data.
2. Facing the scientific transfer, the use of Artificial Intelligence Tools must be clearly indicated in the originals, with a description of the type of AI used, justification and purpose of use, preferably in the methodological section of the article. As in relation to other research tools, articles may present reflections on the advantages and limitations of the resource, in different forms of use, such as generating initial ideas, collecting data, preparing tables and figures, among others.
3. The authorship of scientific works and articles is related to the full development of an intellectual creation, which corresponds to moral and legal responsibilities. Therefore, only human beings can assume this role and Generative Automation and ChatBots applications should NOT be listed or included as authors nor co-authors of works submitted to the journal. In case of detection of imitation of the writing style of authors vehemently not participating in the manuscript, the submission will be automatically discarded due to authorial falsehood style done by mimicry technology.
4. The evaluation of scientific works is also a human task that involves concerns about the confidentiality of the relationship between the journal, authors and reviewers. In this sense, the Journal's editors and their reviewers should not use artificial intelligence tools in the evaluation stages of works sent to Journal Alterjor.
5. Journal Alterjor reserves the right to use AI detection software (written intervention generated by Artificial Intelligence) such as Clarivate to verify and safeguard the originality of manuscripts submitted at any time.
Updated on 9 June 2026:
Plagiarism Detection induced by Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools:
AI tools can be an auxiliary resource for the development of texts and scientific research. However, they have limitations, biases, and possible problems of objectivity and precision. In this case, contributions sent to Revista Alterjor involve the process of forwarding to Plagiarism Detection platforms, whose most common noticeable error involves the discovery of similar textual elements, including identical words without the use of quotation marks or indentations (identification). The main cases in which Plagiarism Detection returns similarity results between 55 to 100% of recognised identification involve:
- Ghost Citation (Author Fabrication): creation of false authors and works arising from them as they use a type of textual support, texts, articles, books and an author that have never actually been published or even existed. In Artificial Intelligence tools, they are related to results resulting from hallucination (software defect) when a name and text are presented as a return to a search result, the defect of which consists of the lack of verification itself, at the same time that the pre-trained model instructs the mechanism the need to obtain a result that, when trying to seek verification, returns a fragmented search with disconnected parts, whose clues can be obtained by inventing dates and page numbers without clear correspondence with the standards of an editorial publication, for example: no registrations in ISBN and ISSN.
How to avoid the occurrence of Ghost Citations: search through reliable scientific information mechanisms, such as Google Scholar, Clarivate, Scopus and Elsevier - at the same time as the exchange of chatbots and other Artificial Intelligence tools still present susceptibility to hallucination failures, summaries with replacement of words by synonyms without indication of paraphrasing, as well as biased referencing from social networks and academic profiles on personal pages. In a simple way, every paper published within a valid ISSN or ISBN denotes a real publication that can be traced. Ultimately, it is recommended to check the websites of scientific journals and electronic bookstores to search for certain authors in question to see whether, in fact, the possibility of the suggested citation is plausible and, in the absence of results, to risk engaging in a practice related to plagiarism with sources fabricated with reference to something that would never have been published and therefore, without scientific validity; - Warp Quotations: referring to the finding that a quote has been distorted in a way that the original publication would not have even discussed or discussed in different terms to the original proposition, such as, for example, using a classic author to support a position that was never articulated in the original work. Displaced citations can occur either due to the hallucination of Artificial Intelligence tools when faced with references arising from patchwork (patchwork) or due to disingenuous attitudes to the point of causing embarrassment and systematic ridicule of sources with purposefully compromising references in contexts displaced for such motivation. Once the citation displacement is verified, it is a critical error identified as plagiarism and the work not only incurs a serious failure of ethical attitude towards authors but also a conference failure for deliberately decontextualised materials.
How to avoid the occurrence of Warp: The best practice to avoid this occurrence requires taking reference notes as precisely as possible, delimiting all types of application worked on by the original author. In the case of revisiting concepts, in the philosophical context, it is recommended, firstly, to respect the author and the work mentioned and to highlight the methodological proposition on several occasions, always with respect and without breaching scientific ethical obligations, without forgetting that the theoretical revisit CAN NEVER enter different sectors from those addressed by the mentioned author. Warp are regarded as a serious failure to detect plagiarism because if used intentionally, it involves the practice of defamation and deconstruction of authors and references, as observed by COPE. For this reason, authors must be aware of these implications and the use of excuses such as "I didn't know or didn't intend" does not exempt the authors from being obliged to check citations appropriately. - Remix (Patchwork): occurs when there is a mix of different reference sources, which instead of providing support and theoretical support, contributes to the opposite, exposing flaws in approach, objectives and, ultimately, as a methodological error. The main error observed in this case can be exemplified by theories that never have made complementary to each other and once detected, it constitutes a serious methodology flaw.
How to avoid inaccurate citation with different methodological sources: always do check whether the works adhere to the proposal of support and support for theoretical-practical foundations, and whenever possible, read the full text of such authors before mentioning them to make sure, before even referring to them, whether they really contribute to the work proposal. Regarding the academic AI tools, such as Clarivate AI or ResearchGate AI, the use of self-generated summaries with suggested reading, used as a free alternative for articles published in commercial journals DOES NOT EXEMPT the authors' responsibility for the justification to avoid expenses with purchasing access to the article. A strategy similar to the recurrence of QUOTES WITH "APUD": excerpts returned with identification in quotation marks does not justify the lack of checking of the original texts. If it is impossible to acquire access to the commercial Journal article, prudence is recommended and, in case of not having the means to check and adjust the result indicated by AI, it is more safe to eliminate a possible failed mention, amid the risk of detecting distortions detected by the Plagiarism Detection tool. - Mosaic (Improper, Accidental or "Unnoticed" Paraphrase): in view of the autogenerative tools of Artificial Intelligence, this is the way that is most susceptible to occurrence, due to the use of query chatbots whose return consists of a summarised text that does not follow the same scientific parameters of the quoted summary, notably, the scientific review and bibliographic records. In this case, the replacement of words with nouns and adjectives that are relatively different from the original text constitutes a paraphrase, regardless of the intention, lack of attention or lack of perception of the application of the paraphrase caused by a chatbot as a way of delivering summarised versions instead of the original correct mention with the same words as the original author. In a scientific work, it is desirable to have the original text cited whenever possible in quotation marks (with up to three lines in the body of the text) or in a paragraph indented citation. Paraphrased texts with more than five key topics in the same paragraph, they must refer to the cited original, example: (FREUD, 2006, p. 55) and ought not recur in consecutive sentences nor paragraphs.
How to avoid Accidental Paraphrasing: take notes accurately, the copy of which involves using the same excerpt that must be referred to the original source in quotation marks or as an indentation. To control the occurrence of paraphrases, it is recommended to write about the topic discussed by the cited author in one's own words without consulting the book or the notes taken: if this text presents any type of inconsistency, it is clear that the author is not familiar enough with the text mentioned to the point of paraphrasing it. In the case of an "unnoticed" paraphrase, it is recommended to pay attention to precisely what will be charged to the author in case of finding similarity with existing texts and without crediting the authors, because in the case of sending "original material" it is understood that the authors are aware that all forms of observation of citations and research on sources published in books, scientific journals, works published in conferences and other releases have been duly verified. In this case, the justification that "I used the result suggested by Artificial Intelligence and 'didn't know it was a paraphrase', with clear inattention to the search for the terms returned" IS NOT ACCEPTED AS AN EXCUSE, since the review process (not just textual, but METHODOLOGICAL) was already indicated as THE AUTHOR'S OWN RESPONSIBILITY.
+ With information taken from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Department of Library Services at the University of Pretoria (South Africa) and the AI Plagiarism Prevention recommendations from the Library and Digital Collections Agency at the University of São Paulo
