Artificial Intelligence Policy Using
Policy on using artificial intelligence (AI) tools at TUOMS PRESS for authors, editors, and reviewers
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in research and publishing has become inevitable. Accordingly, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (TUOMS PRESS), as an academic publisher, in alignment with the emergence of this technology, has since 2023 established and articulated policies regarding the use of AI tools and the requirements for transparency and disclosure in scholarly articles.
In the update scheduled for November 2025, TUOMS PRESS, drawing upon the STM Recommendations for a Classification of AI Use in Academic Manuscript Preparation, has categorized the activities that may be undertaken with AI in the preparation of manuscripts. Within this framework, TUOMS PRESS specifies permissible and non-permissible activities for authors, editors, and reviewers.
In table 1, AI-related activities are classified into 9 groups. For each group, the table provides:
- A description of the use of AI tools in manuscript preparation,
- A definition of the activity,
- Examples of the activity,
- Exclusions (activities not encompassed), and
- An indication of whether the activity is acceptable/permissible under TUOMS PRESS policies.
Table 1. Nine Recommended Classifications of AI Activities from STM Recommendations for a Classification of AI Use in Academic Manuscript Preparation
|
1
|
Refinement, correction, editing or formatting the manuscript to improve clarity of language (**)
|
Machine tools were used to suggest language improvements within the manuscript
|
Using spell checkers, grammar checkers, and similar tools (such as Microsoft 365’s inbuilt editing tools) to refine text written primarily by humans
|
Using AI tools to generate text from prompts or generate summaries of text; using AI tools to analyze or summarize textual documents as part of the research process
|
Permissible ✔
|
|
2
|
Writing or drafting manuscript content
|
AI tools were used to generate part or all of the manuscript text
|
Using AI tools to generate text from prompts; using AI tools to significantly expand on or rewrite text; using AI tools to generate machine summaries of text (e.g. to summarize arguments made in another publication)
|
Use of simple spelling and grammar checkers; analyzing or summarizing textual documents as part of the research process
|
Permissible ✔
|
|
3
|
Translation of manuscript text for the purpose of publishing
|
AI tools were used to assist translation of an author’s original work into a secondary language for inclusion in the manuscript
|
Using AI tools such as Google Translate or ChatGPT to assist with translating a manuscript draft
|
Translation of materials (such as source documents) as part of the research process, unrelated to manuscript preparation
|
Permissible ✔
|
|
4
|
Refining or formatting of data reported in the manuscript
|
AI tools were used to assist with refinement of the presentation of data reported in the manuscript
|
Using AI tools to improve clarity or readability (e.g. on the level of language) or format research data submitted as part of the manuscript or its associated materials (e.g. in supplementary materials or appropriate repositories)
|
Using AI tools to visualize data sets (activity 6) or data manipulation; any generation, correcting, or editing of data used as part of the research process
|
Permissible ✔
|
|
5
|
Generation, refinement, correction, editing or formatting of images, diagrams or other figures for illustrative purposes only
|
AI tools were used to generate images, diagrams, or other figures in the manuscript for illustrative or aesthetic purposes only
|
Using AI tools to create an image of e.g. people farming in an ancient society – the sort of image that might otherwise be created by a human artist
as an illustration
|
Visualization of actual data or research outputs, editing of visualizations of actual data or results, presentation of generated images as research outputs in themselves or as representing research outputs
|
Permissible ✔
|
|
6
|
Generation, refinement, correction, editing or formatting of visualizations of research data or results
|
AI tools were used to visualize or refine visualizations of research data/results in the manuscript
|
Using AI tools to generate graphs, tables, or other visualizations of research datasets
|
Use of traditional statistical software (such as STATA, SAS, and R) to visualize data; generation of images or other content without any basis in real research data/outputs
|
Not Permissible
|
|
7
|
Refinement or formatting of code reported in the submitted manuscript
|
AI tools were used to assist with refinement of the presentation of code used in the research process and reported in the manuscript
|
Using AI tools to improve the readability and clarity of code submitted as part of the manuscript or any associated materials (e.g. in supplementary materials or appropriate repositories), without altering its functionality
|
Using AI tools to generate new code for use in research processes, or alter the functionality of code used in research processes before manuscript submission
|
Conditional upon:
- Preservation of logic and results
- Final review and approval by the researcher
- Disclosure in the Methods section or Appendix
|
|
8
|
Assisting with gathering references
|
AI tools were used to suggest references to include in the manuscript’s reference list
|
Using AI tools to find and identify articles that are likely to be related to the research reported in the manuscript
|
Using automated tools (such as BibTeX) to generate formatted citations for references identified by human authors; using AI tools to generate plausible-sounding references that do not exist; using AI tools to identify publications that may be useful to the research process
|
Not Permissible
|
|
9
|
Presentation of any kind of content generated by AI tools as though it were original research data/results from non- machine sources (***)
|
AI tools were used to create data, text, images, graphs, spectra, or other content that is presented as though it were original research data/results collected or analyzed from other, non-machine sources
|
Any content generated wholesale by AI tools without any basis in original research data/outputs, presented as though it is based on original data/results
|
Using AI tools to visualize original research data/results (activity 6); carrying out research on the outputs of generative AI (in which case outputs generated by the AI being studied can be considered research data)
|
Not Permissible
|
(*) We reiterate that use of AI in other stages of research processes is outside the scope of this classification. This classification considers only activities that use AI tools to assist with the preparation of manuscripts.
(**) 2023 STM Guidelines recommend that disclosure is not necessary for this use of automated tools.
(***) 2023 STM Guidelines recommend prohibiting this use of AI tools.
Reference: STM Recommendations for a Classification of AI Use in Academic Manuscript Preparation. SEPTEMBER 2025
Authors:
The authors should disclose whether they used Artificial Intelligence (AI) assisted technologies such as large language models [LLMs], chatbots, or image creators) in the production of the submitted manuscript. For comprehensive instructions, please refer to the TUOMS Press Guidelines for Authors and reviewers.
Note: Chatbots (such as ChatGPT) should not be listed as authors because they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the manuscript, and these responsibilities are required for authorship.
Note: Referencing AI-generated material as the primary source is not acceptable.
Editors:
According to the ICMJE recommendation, editors should know that using AI technology to process manuscripts may violate confidentiality. So, TUOMS PRESS policies do not recommend using AI technology to process all manuscripts submitted to the journals.
Reviewers:
The confidentiality of manuscripts is critical in the peer-review process. According to TUOMS PRESS policy for reviewers, using AI technology to maintain confidentiality is unacceptable. Uploading the manuscript to software or other AI technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured is prohibited. Reviewers should be aware that AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. For comprehensive instructions, please refer to the TUOMS Press Guidelines for Authors and reviewers.
Note: Referencing AI-generated material as the primary source is not acceptable.
How should editors and reviewers respond to AI use in manuscripts?
At TUOMS PRESS, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools within the scope of permitted activities (Table 1), accompanied by complete and transparent disclosure, is subject to editorial review. The use of generative AI tools, in itself, does not constitute grounds for rejection of a manuscript. Authors, however, must provide clear disclosure of the acceptable conditions previously outlined. In cases where editors encounter suspicious circumstances, they should:
Query but don’t accuse: Editors should make inquiries to the authors while refraining from accusing them at this stage.
Encourage transparency: The editor should contact the authors in a neutral tone and point out that the characteristics of the manuscript are consistent with the use of generative artificial intelligence. In accordance with the journal’s policies, authors must clarify whether such tools were employed in the preparation of the manuscript. Disclosure and updating of any previous statement must be ensured. It should be made clear to the authors that the purpose is transparency. Editors must refrain from rejecting manuscripts solely on the basis of suspicion that generative AI has been used without disclosure.
Proceed proportionally to evidence: If the author(s) are unable to resolve concerns regarding the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, the editor reserves the right to reject the manuscript. In cases where evidence of research misconduct is identified, the journals may refer their concerns to an institution or an ethics committee.
Editors should take into consideration when reviewing a manuscript include:
- Citations that don't adequately support claims
- Unclear methodology or analysis
- Poor logical flow or organization
- Missing context or background information
- Writing quality that doesn't meet your journal's standards
Evidence that may lead to rejection of a manuscript by the editor include:
- Fabricated citations or references
- Falsified data or methodology
- Inability to verify research when requested
- Failure to address substantive concerns about research validity
- ......