The Revista de Filosofía UCSC recognizes that generative artificial intelligence systems can assist with certain tasks in academic writing and editorial management, but considers philosophical work to consist in formulating problems, constructing arguments, interpreting texts, and publicly taking responsibility for a position. For this reason, this policy distinguishes between uses that operate on the form of a text produced by its authors, which the journal permits when disclosed, and uses that replace the intellectual work involved in the contribution, which are not permitted. It applies to authors, reviewers, and editors and complements the policies on Integrity, originality and authorship, Editorial process and peer review, and Publication ethics.

General principles

Artificial intelligence systems cannot be recognized as authors or co-authors because they cannot assume responsibility for a contribution, approve its publication, declare conflicts of interest, or manage rights. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and legality of all submitted content, including any parts for which such tools have been used.

Editorial decisions, peer review, and the examination of possible misconduct are human activities. No decision concerning a manuscript or a person will be made exclusively on the basis of the output of an automated system.

For the purposes of this policy, generative artificial intelligence means any system capable of producing, reformulating, summarizing, or translating texts, images, or other content in response to instructions. Spelling and grammar checkers that do not reformulate the text, reference management software, and conventional search engines are not considered uses of generative artificial intelligence.

Use by authors

Permitted uses subject to disclosure

Authors may use generative artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use is disclosed, to:

1. review the linguistic correctness, clarity, or style of texts they have written themselves, without altering their argumentative content;
2. translate their own texts, including the title, abstract, and keywords into English, provided that they review the translation in full;
3. identify possible bibliographic references or formulate search terms, provided that every work used is consulted directly and that its reading is not replaced by summaries, characterizations, or interpretations generated by the system;
4. standardize the formatting of references or adapt the manuscript to the journal’s editorial guidelines;
5. produce charts or diagrams from data, arguments, or conceptual relations defined by the authors themselves, provided that they verify that the resulting representation accurately reflects that content.

For translations published by the journal as contributions in their own right, the use of machine translation as an aid must be disclosed and does not exempt the translator from checking the entire translation against the original text. The journal may reject translations that do not demonstrate complete philological and conceptual review.

Uses not permitted

Generative artificial intelligence systems may not be used to:

1. generate the thesis, arguments, interpretations of sources, or other content that forms part of the intellectual work of the contribution;
2. produce quotations, paraphrases, or references that have not been verified directly against the original source;
3. present content generated or altered by such systems as though it were an authentic source, testimony, or datum;
4. process personal data or confidential information concerning research participants without the safeguards required by the journal’s Publication ethics policy.

The intellectual work of a contribution includes, among other elements, the formulation of the problem and thesis, argumentative development, the analysis and interpretation of sources, the state of the question, conclusions, the abstract, and substantive responses to reviewers’ comments. The translation and linguistic correction of such content, when it has been written by the authors themselves, are governed by the permitted uses set out above.

Every direct quotation and every reference must be verified by the authors against the edition they declare having used. The inclusion of nonexistent references, quotations that do not correspond to the source, or false attributions constitutes a breach of academic integrity regardless of the tool through which it originated.

Uses not expressly covered by this policy will be assessed according to the distinction between form and intellectual work that guides it and must be disclosed. In cases of uncertainty, authors may consult the Editorial Team before submission.

Disclosure

Any use of generative artificial intelligence must be disclosed in the declarations section established by the journal’s Integrity, originality and authorship policy. The disclosure must identify the tool, its version and provider when available, the period of use, its purpose, and the sections or tasks in which it was used, and must confirm that the authors reviewed the output and assume responsibility for the content. For example:

Use of generative artificial intelligence: The author used DeepL Pro, web version, in March 2026 to translate the title, abstract, and keywords into English. The translation was reviewed by the author, who assumes full responsibility for the content of this work.

When none of these tools has been used, the wording established in the Integrity, originality and authorship policy must be used. The journal may request additional information concerning a disclosed use, such as the instructions employed or intermediate versions of the text, when necessary to assess the integrity of the work.

Artificial intelligence as an object of study

When a contribution analyzes texts or outputs produced by artificial intelligence systems as an object of philosophical research, it must identify the system, its version, the date of the queries, and the instructions used, and must make the analyzed outputs available either within the text itself or as supplementary material. Only in such cases may these outputs be cited, and never as authoritative sources on the subject under discussion.

Peer review

For reasons of confidentiality and responsibility in academic judgment, reviewers may not enter, upload, or share, in whole or in part, manuscripts or associated materials in generative artificial intelligence systems, regardless of the purpose. Nor may they use such systems to evaluate the manuscript or to draft or reformulate their reports, which must express their own judgment. When submitting their report, reviewers will confirm that they have complied with these conditions.

Editorial Team

The same restrictions apply to the Editorial Team and to all persons involved in manuscript management. The journal may use tools that do not generate content, such as similarity-detection and reference-verification systems, and may use generative artificial intelligence systems for administrative tasks that do not involve unpublished manuscripts or personal data, under the supervision and responsibility of the Editorial Team.

Undisclosed or non-permitted uses

The results of tools that estimate the probability that a text was generated by artificial intelligence do not, by themselves, constitute evidence of improper use, given their margin of error. The journal may consider them as an indication together with verifiable elements such as nonexistent references, quotations that do not correspond to the source, or false attributions.

When an undisclosed or non-permitted use is suspected, the journal will request an explanation from the authors and will proceed in accordance with the policy on Complaints, appeals, corrections and retractions. Before publication, it may request clarifications or modifications or reject the manuscript; after publication, it may issue a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction, depending on the seriousness of the case. Undisclosed substantive use is considered a breach of academic integrity.

Updating this policy

The journal will review this policy when available tools, COPE guidance, or practices within the philosophical community change, and will keep the date of each version publicly available.

This policy draws on COPE’s position on authorship and AI tools.