I. Introduction

This policy sets out the guidelines for the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the writing, evaluation, and publication of research papers in the Revista Digital de Investigación en Docencia Universitaria – RIDU. It aims to ensure the quality, originality, and transparency of the papers selected and accepted for publication, as well as compliance with editorial standards and respect for intellectual property rights.

II. Regulatory framework

The regulations adopted by RIDU for the use of AI tools is aligned with institutional, national and international policies.

Institutional guidelines highlight the importance of the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), stating that: “Its emergence has significantly transformed various aspects, leading to major advances in education, professional development, and ethics” (Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas [UPC], n.d.). For RIDU, this policy will particularly give consideration to ethical aspects, which include bias, data security, academic integrity, and human supervision.

Regarding the use of GenAI tools, those supporting communication and writing will be emphasized. The GenAI applied to communication refers to the use of advanced technology to facilitate interaction between individuals and systems through natural language. Tools designed to understand, interpret, and generate human language simulating human communication (Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas [UPC], n.d.) are included. The GenAI applied to writing is related to spelling, grammar and punctuation review. It includes editing tools that provide assistance in grammar, style, and text generation, which improve the quality and coherence of the written content (Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas [UPC], n.d.). 

Regarding national policies, RIDU complies with the Supreme Decree approving the regulations of Law No. 31814 that promotes the use of artificial intelligence for the economic and social development of the country, as established by Supreme Decree No. 048-2019-PCM (2025). Article 7 thereof, under the guiding principle (h) Human Oversight, states that AI-based systems must be subject to human supervision to ensure that their decisions are ethical, fair, and respectful of fundamental rights, and to guarantee that the data used are validated for accuracy, integrity and representativeness. Human intervention is required to correct, modify, or stop the functioning of these systems to prevent abuse, strengthen transparency and accountability as well as to safeguard collective well-being, thereby complying with current legal, ethical and moral principles (Executive Branch, 2025). And under the guiding principle (k) Ethical development for a responsible use of AI, it promotes an ethical approach to establish that in the development, implementation, and use of AI-based systems, the respect for human rights, dignity, and collective well-being are guaranteed in compliance with legal, ethics and moral principles (Executive Branch, 2025).

Among the international principles taken into account, those established by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) regarding how to prepare the AI generations and the new AI competency frameworks (UNESCO, 2024) are given priority. The Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (UNESCO, 2021) provides the regulatory framework required to address multiple controversies in relation to generative AI, including those related to education and research. Given that serial scientific publications are the main means for the dissemination and visibility of scientific research outputs, it is necessary to consider global frameworks such those established by UNESCO regarding research indicators, focused on human beings, for example, to ensure confidentiality, safeguard data privacy, and regulate interactions and degree of engagement with various GenAI platforms. These considerations are essential within the research process leading to the development of studies that will be submitted for scientific publication. In addition, this will contribute to strengthening the peer review process of these studies by identifying their origin (formulation) and, especially, the methods and tools used in their development.

The Beijing Consensus on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Education (2019) explores the implications of a human-centered approach in the use of AI within educational contexts. The Consensus suggests adopting comprehensive, intersectoral, and multi-stakeholder approaches to the planning of policies on AI in education. Artificial intelligence and education: The Guidance for policy-makers (UNESCO, 2022b) further explores the implications of a human-centered approach when assessing the benefits and risks of AI in education and the role of the latter as the means to develop AI competencies.

The emergence of GenAI is rapidly changing the way scientific, artistic, and literary works are created, distributed, and consumed. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or use of copyrighted works without the author’s consent constitutes a violation of their exclusive rights and can result in legal actions (UNESCO, 2024). Writing, for example, is normally associated with the organization of thought. Instead of starting from scratch to plan the goals, scope and outline of a set of ideas, now humans can begin with a well-structured draft provided by GenAI. Some experts have described the use of GenAI to create text as “writing without thinking” (Chayka, 2023).

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools) is the international organization or reference body most directly related to the context of scientific publications. It provides recommendations for various journals around the world, specially outlining ethical principles that guide and support researchers, editors, reviewers, and others involved in publication ethics, so that they perform their work in a responsible and transparent manner.

In relation to AI, COPE provides guidance for decision making, fake papers, AI and editorial authorship, and the challenge associated with AI chatbots.

The use of AI in the publication process seeks to streamline decision making during the review process and to reduce the workload of editors, reviewers, and authors. The use of AI raises key ethical considerations in relation to accountability, responsibility, and transparency (COPE, 2021). Likewise, COPE together with WAME and the JAMA Network state that AI tools cannot be included as authors of a paper. 

A chatbot is a tool “powered by [artificial intelligence], automated rules, natural language processing (NLP), and machine learning (ML)… [to] process data and deliver responses to a wide range of requests” (OCI, 2023). Artificial Intelligence (AI) “generally refers to the idea of computers that can learn and make decisions in ways similar to humans” (Newman, 2022). On the other hand, ChatGPT is a chatbot that “is an example of generative AI, since it can create something completely new that has never existed before” (Marr, 2023), meaning that it can use existing information organized in new ways. ChatGPT offers a wide range of potential applications, such as summarizing long papers or producing the first draft of a presentation that can be later edited (Naughton, 2023). It can assist researchers, students, and educators in generating ideas (Roose, 2023). ChatGPT has many limitations as recognized by its own developers: ChatGPT sometimes delivers responses that appear to be plausible, but are not correct or nonsensical...Ideally, the model would ask clarifying questions if the user provides an ambiguous prompt (Zielinski and al., 2023).

In this regard, WAME provides some recommendations: Chatbots cannot be considered as authors. Chatbots are not able to meet the authorship criteria established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), especially the requirements for “Final approval of the version to be published” and the “Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the paper to ensure that any questions related to accuracy or integrity of any part of the study is properly investigated or resolved.” (ICMEJ, 2023). Since the field continues to evolve rapidly, authors who use a chatbot to write a paper must declare this and provide the technical specifications of the chatbot used (name, version, model, source), and the method of application in the paper submitted (prompt structure, syntax). This is consistent with the ICMJE’s recommendation to recognize writing assistance. (ICMEJ, 2023). Authors are accountable for the work carried out by a chatbot in their paper (including the accuracy of the content and the absence of plagiarism) and for the proper attribution of all sources (including the material delivered by the chatbot) (Zielinski and al., 2023). Publishers that work (STM, 2023). These tools should be made available to editors regardless of their payment capacity for the benefit of science and the audience.

An additional international guideline is the Heredia Declaration, which, from the perspective of scientific publishing, provides a set of considerations for the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) in research processes leading to scientific publication. AI is recognized as a tool whose use must be documented and disclosed to promote a clear, traceable, and reproducible exercise in the generation of knowledge (Penabad-Camacho et al., 2024). According to authors, these principles are presented in four groups: general, authorship, peer review and editorial roles.

Given the relevance and applicability of these principles for the RIDU policy, those proposed by the authors are quoted verbatim below (Penabad-Camacho et al., 2024):

General

1. The roles of editing, reviewing, and authorship are carried out by humans who can mediate the publication process of scientific documents. To fulfill such roles, individuals must be trained to adopt and promote responsible practices in scientific communication and the use of artificial intelligence.

2. Artificial intelligence must not replace the responsibilities or accountability of individuals exercising such roles. Similarly, the editorial process must not depend solely on actions related to AI. Regarding the authorship role

3. Humans perform the authorship role, and these individuals can be acknowledged for their capacity, in the exercise of their intellect, to create, make decisions, and take responsibility for the works generated. Accordingly, language models, chatbots, or generative AI cannot be considered authors, as they cannot fully meet these three conditions.

4. The explicit declaration of the use of AI in research processes and production of scientific texts—at any stage of the scientific publication process—demonstrates transparency and supports good practices aimed at ensuring the reproducibility of science. In this regard, it is necessary to provide a solid explanation indicating at least the following:

• El modelo de IA, su versión, la fecha de uso. The AI model, version and date of use.

• How it was used, identify interactions and combinations that can be articulated among models.

• What products and formats—generated for such interaction—were integrated to the publication of results. 

• Cite and reference the model used, taking into account the diversity and potential complexity of interactions and combinations that can be articulated when using this tool.

5. Authors are expected to filter the information about the content delivered by an AI model and that new knowledge is generated from those inputs. Verification of the accuracy of the information gathered is critical in today’s context. The responses provided by AI cannot be assumed to be true or definitive. Avoiding plagiarism, misinformation, the dissemination of biases, or any other form of academic fraud is part of authors’ responsibilities when interacting with AI models. Ensuring that inputs are legitimately used must be an ongoing concern for those exercising the authorship role.

6. Personal, confidential, sensitive, or third-party data must be protected when there is no explicit authorization to use them as part of the queries in an AI model.

7. If third-party financial support was provided for the implementation or use of AI models in the research or publication process, it must also be reported.

Regarding the peer review role

8. The responsibility for the judgement recommending, or not, the publication of a scientific paper—or suggesting corrections and improvements—lies with the person performing the role of reviewer. Interaction with AI does not substitute the person’s expert judgement or accountability.

9. If the use of AI is incorporated in the review process, it should be indicated to the editorial team and, through them, to the authors. Including, at least, the model name, version, date of use, as well as the prompt provided as an assessment instruction, is part of a transparent and traceable exercise of the evaluation of contents.

10. Reviewers must be able to explain their AI interactions, the input they have received and how much of that has been considered in their observations, comments, recommendations, and requests for revision, they have issued as part of their assessment of a scientific paper. Regarding the editorial role

11. The responsibility for the editing process lies with the editor and the editorial team supporting them. The use of AI must not replace the responsibility or accountability of humans when exercising tasks related to editing or monitoring the role of reviewers and authors. The role of editing scientific papers must not depend on the use of AI.

12. Editors shall indicate if they have used AI at any part of the editorial process. The report shall include the model name, version, date of use, and the prompt provided.

13. Prevention strategies shall be established to avoid dissemination of bias, misinformation, or when respect for or ethical treatment of personal data cannot be guaranteed. Moreover, the use of open, reliable and quality data supported by the consent or authorizations that allow AI to make legitimate use of such information shall be promoted.

14. Authors and readers shall be informed, for transparency purposes, when editorial or review tasks have been supported by the use of AI.

The Decalogue for the ethical use of AI in scientific and academic journals provides principles and recommendations to promote transparency, safeguard scientific integrity, and strengthen human responsibility in an increasing automation context (Authier and De Volder, 2025). These principles take into account aspects such as: Authorship, human responsibility, transparency, scientific integrity, ethics, documentation, verification, limitations, citation, and ongoing education and update. As previously mentioned, these aspects must be assumed by authors, peers, administrators, and those responsible for scientific publishing management processes.

When using AI in RIDU, authors must respect and maintain the firm commitment to ethics, transparency, quality, and scientific rigor of the contributions submitted for publication. In this regard, RIDU supports the use of AI in scientific writing through tools that can improve the efficiency of processes for paper production and publishing management, but it does not support the use of AI that involves data manipulation, plagiarism, or infringement of intellectual property.

In the case AI tools are used in the results of the research submitted, the author or authors must include the following information before the references section: a) the specific sections where AI tools were applied, and b) the type of tools used.

Authorship fundamental responsibilities

Authors must declare if they used AI in research processes or in the preparation of scientific papers at any stage of the scientific publication process, that is:

- The AI model, version and date of use

- How was it used? Identify interactions and combinations that can be articulated among models

- What products and formats were incorporated in the publication of results

- Cite and reference the model used

Whenever AI is used, authors must explicitly declare it in the paper indicating the use of any AI tools for writing, editing, translating, or data analyzing. It must be ensured that the use of AI does not affect the originality of the paper, avoiding plagiarism or generation of biased, inaccurate or incorrect content. Regarding the use of AI for data fabrication and result manipulation, it will be considered an ethical violation and will lead to the rejection of the paper. The use of AI for the creation or modification of graphs, figures or images is not allowed in papers; however, in research projects where the use of AI is necessary for their production, authors must inform and justify its application.

Responsibility regarding content, interpretation and conclusions lies exclusively with human authors. According to COPE’s guidelines, AI tools cannot be listed as authors of a paper.

Fundamental responsibilities of the review role

In the case of AI used as a supporting means in the review process, the person in charge of publishing management must be informed, who shall, in turn, inform the authors. If AI is used, it shall be applied to the analysis of papers, but not to make the final decision about the acceptance or rejection of a paper. The model name, version, and date of use shall also be reported. If the use of AI is detected in this context and it was not reported, then the reviewer shall be excluded from future evaluation processes.

Fundamental responsibilities of the editorial role

The person responsible for the publishing management process shall report whenever the AI have been used at any stage of such process. The model name, version, and date of use shall be indicated.

Those in charge of the editorial process may use the AI for administrative and editing tasks, such as layout, paper formatting, and plagiarism detection, ensuring human supervision to guarantee the originality, coherence, transparency, and quality of the publication.

How to reference and cite AI tools

1. Personal communication (such as ChatGPT, if it cannot be retrieved / ChatGPT is not a retrievable source unless a transcript of the conversation is provided, as others cannot access the content).

In-text: (Name, personal communication, date): (ChatGPT, personal communication, October 2, 2025)

And it is not included in the reference list

Note. This applies if you are using a response that is not published in an accessible location (such as a website or shared document)

2. Query to ChatGPT or another AI (retrievable with transcript)
OpenAI. (Year). Descriptive title of the conversation [ChatGPT]. https://chat.openai.com/
Example:
In-text citation:
- According to OpenAI (2025) …
OpenAI. (2025). Query on the first scientific journal in Peru [ChatGPT].
https://chat.openai.com/.

 

RIDU reserves the right to request additional information about the use of AI and any failure to comply with this policy shall result in the rejection of the submission, removal of the paper already under evaluation, as well as the non-acceptance of future submissions. This policy shall be updated on an annual basis, if necessary, given the rapid technological development of AI, regarding technical and legal aspects.

References

Acevedo Carrillo, M., Cabezas Torres, N.M., La Serna La Rosa, P. A. & Araujo Rossel, S. A. (2026). Desafíos y oportunidades de la inteligencia artificial en la educación superior latinoamericana: una revisión sistemática de la literatura. Revista InveCom, 6(1), e601074. Epub 21 de julio de 2025. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15508755

Authier, C. y De Volder, C. (17 de julio de 2025). Decálogo para el uso ético de la inteligencia artificial en revistas científicas y académicas. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16044716

Chayka, K. (2023). My A.I. Writing Report. Nueva York, The New Yorker. Disponible en: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/my-ai-writing-robot

Comité de Ética de Publicaciones (COPE) (2021). Documento de debate de COPE: Inteligencia artificial (IA) en la toma de decisiones-Inglés. https://doi.org/10.24318/9kvAgrnJ

Comité de Ética de Publicaciones (COPE). (13 de febrero de 2023). Autoría y herramientas de IA. COPE. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope- position/authorship-and-ai-tools

Comité de Ética de Publicaciones (COPE). (2025, 15, 09). Inteligencia artificial (IA) y documentos falsos. COPE. https://publicationethics.org/topic-discussions/artificial- intelligence-ai-and-fake-papers

Comité Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas (ICMEJ). (2023). ¿Quién es un autor? Definición del rol de los autores y colaboradores. ICMJE. Disponible en www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-resolutions/defining-the- role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

El Poder Ejecutivo Peruano (2025) publicó el Decreto Supremo Nº 115-2025-PCM. (9 de septiembre de 2025). Reglamento de la Ley Nº 31814, Ley que promueve el uso de la inteligencia artificial en favor del desarrollo económico y social del país. Diario Oficial El Peruano, 9 de septiembre de 2025.

Gonzales Torres, C. (2025). Aplicación de la IA en la elaboración de artículos científicos. Horizonte Médico. 25(2), https://doi.org/10.24265/horizmed.2025.v25n2.00

Marr B. ¿Cómo afectará ChatGPT a tu trabajo si trabajas en publicidad y marketing? Forbes.17de enero de 2023. Disponible en: www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2023/01/17/how-will-chatgpt-affect-your-job-if- you-work-in-advertising-and-marketing/?sh=241ef86c39a3

Morales, G. E., & Jaimes Carrillo, L. (2024). Peligros y desafíos de la inteligencia artificial en el proceso editorial. Gestión I+D, 9(1), 10–15. Recuperado a partir de https://saber.ucv.ve/ojs/index.php/rev_GID/article/view/27753

Naughton J. El bot ChatGPT está causando pánico ahora, pero pronto será una herramienta tan común como Excel. The Guardian. 7 de enero de 2023. Disponible en www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/07/chatgpt-bot-excel-ai-chatbottech

Newman J. ¿ChatGPT? ¿Difusión estable? Jerga de IA generativa, explicada. Fast Company, 26 de diciembre de 2022. Disponible en: www.fastcompany.com/90826308/chatgpt-stable-diffusion-generative-ai-jargon- explained

Oficina del Derecho de Autor de EEUU. 2023. Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence. Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 51. Washington DC, EEUU, Oficina del Derecho de Autor, Biblioteca del Congreso, pp. 16190-16194. Disponible en: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-05321

Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI). (2023). ¿Qué es un chatbot?. Disponible en: www.oracle.com/chatbots/what-is-a-chatbot/ Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación la Ciencia y la Cultura (UNESCO). (2019). Beijing Consensus on Artificial Intelligence and Education. París, UNESCO. Disponible en: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000372249?posInSet=1&queryId=N- EXPLORE-f1dbb9a7-fc3d-45f8-aea8-967f041eb280

Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación la Ciencia y la Cultura (UNESCO). (2021). Recomendación de la UNESCO sobre la ciencia abierta. https://doi.org/10.54677/YDOG4702

Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación la Ciencia y la Cultura (UNESCO). (2021). Recomendación sobre la ética de la inteligencia artificial. París, UNESCO. Disponible en: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137_spa

Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación la Ciencia y la Cultura (UNESCO). (2022b). Inteligencia artificial y educación: guía para las personas a cargo de formular políticas. París, UNESCO. Disponible en: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379376

Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación la Ciencia y la Cultura (UNESCO). (2023a). Kit de herramientas global sobre IA y el estado de derecho para el poder judicial. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000387331_spa

Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación la Ciencia y la Cultura (UNESCO). (2024). Guía para el uso de IA generativa en educación e investigación. (2024). Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación la Ciencia y la Cultura (UNESCO). París, UNESCO. Disponible en: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000389227?posInSet=1&queryId=8818e7 4b-ed5d-4627-b37f-20d1ea80f7f2

Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación la Ciencia y la Cultura (UNESCO). (2024). La UNESCO en acción: Los aspectos más destacados de la educación en 2024. París, UNESCO. Disponible en: https://www.unesco.org/es/articles/la-unesco-en-accion-los-aspectos-mas- destacados-de-la-educacion-en-2024

Open Journal Systems. (OJS). (2023). Proyecto de Conocimiento Público. Disponible en https://pkp.sfu.ca/software/ojs/

Pardal-Refoyo, J. L. (2025). A vueltas con la inteligencia artificial y el proceso editorial. Influencia actual y futura de la IA en el proceso editorial de las revistas biomédicas. Revista ORL, 16(1), 1-4. Epub 22 de abril de 2025. https://dx.doi.org/10.14201/orl.32967

Penabad-Camacho, L., Penabad-Camacho, M. A., Mora-Campos, A., Cerdas-Vega, G., Morales-López, Y., Ulate-Segura, M., Méndez-Solano, A., Nova-Bustos, N., Vega- Solano, M. F., & Castro-Solano, M. M. (2024). Heredia Declaration: Principles on the use of Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Publishing. Revista Electrónica Educare, 28(S), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.15359/ree.28-S.19967

Pinak, E. (2023). GPT, ¿Es que la Inteligencia Artificial tiene alucinaciones? [online]. SciELO en Perspectiva. [consultado el 20 de diciembre de 2023]. Disponible en: https://blog.scielo.org/es/2023/12/20/es-que-la-inteligencia-artificial-tiene- alucinaciones/

Roose K. No prohíban ChatGPT en las escuelas. Enseñen con él, NYTimes. 12 de enero de 2023. Disponible en: www.nytimes.com/2023/01/12/technology/chatgpt- schools-teachers.html Society for Scholarly Publishing (STM). (2023). Disponible en: www.stm- assoc.org/stm-integrity-hub/

Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas. (s.f.). Optimiza tu aprendizaje con IA Generativa: herramientas y recursos [Guías Temáticas UPC]. Recuperado el 06 de octubre de 2025 de: https://biblioteca.upc.edu.pe/herramientas-y-recursos- iag/importancia "Recuperado el 06 de octubre de 2025.

Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas. (s.f.). Optimiza tu aprendizaje con IA Generativa: herramientas y recursos [Guías Temáticas UPC]. Recuperado el 06 de octubre de 2025 de: https://biblioteca.upc.edu.pe/herramientas-y-recursos- iag/comunicación

Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas. (s.f.). Optimiza tu aprendizaje con IA Generativa: herramientas y recursos [Guías Temáticas UPC]. Recuperado el 06 de octubre de 2025 de: https://biblioteca.upc.edu.pe/herramientas-y-recursos- iag/escritura

Zielinski, C., Winker M. A., Aggarwal Rakes, F., Lorraine E., Heinemann M., Lapeña Jr, J. F., Pai Sanjay A., Edsel C., Leslie A., Mura Voight M. & Habibzadeh F. (2023). Recomendaciones de WAME sobre “chatbots” e inteligencia artificial generativa en relación con las publicaciones académicas. Colombia Médica, 54 (3), e1015868. Publicación electrónica del 30 de septiembre de 2023. https://doi.org/10.25100/cm.v54i3.5868