Artificial intelligence (AI)

NASR is closely monitoring ongoing developments in the field of artificial intelligence and will review and update this policy as appropriate.

AI Authorship

Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, do not currently meet NASR’s authorship criteria. Attribution of authorship carries accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. Any use of an LLM must be properly documented in the Methods section (or, if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative part) of the manuscript. The use of an LLM or other AI tool for "AI-assisted copy editing" purposes does not need to be declared. In this context, "AI-assisted copy editing" refers to AI-supported improvements to human-generated texts for readability, style, grammar, spelling, punctuation, and tone. Such improvements may include wording and formatting changes but do not include generative editorial work or autonomous content creation. In all cases, human accountability for the final version of the text is required, along with author confirmation that the edits reflect their original work.

Generative AI Images

The rapidly evolving area of generative AI image creation has introduced novel legal copyright and research integrity issues. As a publisher, NASR strictly adheres to existing copyright law and best practices in publication ethics. Given that legal issues surrounding AI-generated images and videos remain largely unresolved, NASR journals are currently unable to permit their use for publication.

Exceptions:

  • Images or artwork obtained from agencies with which NASR has contractual relationships, provided those images have been created in a legally acceptable manner.

  • Images and videos directly referenced in a piece specifically focused on AI; such cases will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

  • The use of generative AI tools developed with specific, attributable sets of scientific data that can be checked and verified for accuracy, provided that ethics, copyright, and terms of use restrictions are adhered to.

All exceptions must be clearly labeled as generated by AI within the image field.

Given the rapid evolution of this field, NASR will review this policy regularly and adapt it as necessary.

NOTE: Image types covered by this policy include video and animation (including video stills), photography, illustrations such as scientific diagrams, photo-illustrations and other collages, and editorial illustrations such as drawings, cartoons, or other 2D or 3D visual representations. Not covered are text-based and numerical display items such as tables, flow charts, and other simple graphs that do not contain images. Please note that not all AI tools are generative. The use of non-generative machine learning tools to manipulate, combine, or enhance existing images or figures should be disclosed in the relevant caption upon submission to allow case-by-case review.

AI Use by Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a vital role in scientific publishing. Their expert evaluations and recommendations guide editorial decisions and ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible. Reviewers are selected primarily for their in-depth knowledge of the subject matter or methods of the work they are asked to evaluate expertise that is invaluable and irreplaceable. Peer reviewers are accountable for the accuracy and views expressed in their reports, and the peer review process operates on a principle of mutual trust among authors, reviewers, and editors. Despite rapid progress, generative AI tools have considerable limitations: they may lack up-to-date knowledge and can produce nonsensical, biased, or false information. Manuscripts may also contain sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. For these reasons, NASR asks that—while we explore providing reviewers with access to safe AI tools—peer reviewers do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools.

If any part of the evaluation of the claims made in the manuscript was supported by an AI tool, peer reviewers are asked to transparently declare the use of such tools in the peer review report.