Generative AI Policy

 

1. Preamble

MODERATE affirms that scholarly work at the intersection of religion, education, and social studies demands human accountability, interpretive depth, and contextual sensitivity. Generative AI may assist scholarly labor, but it cannot bear intellectual or ethical responsibility. This policy is therefore organized around five principles rather than procedural rules.

2. Five Principles

Principle 1 — Transparency
Authors must disclose AI use in a dedicated statement. Disclosure is not an admission of deficiency; it is a mark of scholarly integrity.

Principle 2 — Human Accountability
The author remains the sole responsible agent for every claim, citation, and interpretation. AI cannot be an author, co-author, or cited authority.

Principle 3 — Verification
All AI-generated content—especially citations, scriptural references, historical claims, and statistical statements—must be independently verified against authoritative sources.

Principle 4 — Contextual Integrity
AI-generated content must be critically adapted to the religious, cultural, and linguistic context of the manuscript. Tools trained on non-representative corpora may produce theologically or culturally inappropriate material; authors bear responsibility for correction.

Principle 5 — Ethical Boundaries
AI must not be used to fabricate data, manipulate results, bypass peer review, or circumvent citation practices. AI use in research involving sensitive data must comply with privacy and confidentiality standards.

3. Disclosure Statement

Authors must include one of the following statements:

No AI use: "I/We declare that no generative AI tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript."

AI use: "I/We declare that generative AI tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript. Tool(s): [name]. Purpose: [description]. All AI-assisted content was verified by the authors, who take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and ethical integrity of the manuscript."

4. Editorial Review

Reviewers are invited to assess whether AI-assisted content meets the journal's standards of interpretive depth and contextual accuracy. Editors may request clarification or additional verification where AI involvement appears to have compromised scholarly quality.

5. Sanctions

Failure to disclose AI use, or use of AI in ways that violate these principles, may lead to rejection, correction, or retraction.