Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in Manuscript Preparation
Er(r)go Editorial Guidance (Aligned with COPE)

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools—such as ChatGPT and other large language models—in the preparation of research publications is expanding rapidly across academic disciplines. The Er(r)go. Theory - Literature - Culture recognizes this development as part of the contemporary scholarly ecosystem and addresses it in accordance with the ethical standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE joins other international organizations, including the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and the JAMA Network, in affirming that AI tools cannot be listed as authors of scholarly publications, as they are unable to meet core authorship criteria, including responsibility, accountability, and intellectual agency.

Disclosure, Responsibility, and Editorial Assessment
Disclosure of AI-assisted language, stylistic, or structural editing does not constitute grounds for rejection and should not be treated as evidence of academic misconduct. In line with COPE guidance, editorial concerns arise only where there is a substantiated reason to believe that authorship, originality, intellectual contribution, or scholarly accountability has been misrepresented.

The journal’s policy reflects COPE’s core principles:

a) Artificial intelligence tools cannot be credited as authors or co-authors.
b) Transparency regarding the use of AI tools is required, including a brief description of how they were used (e.g., language polishing, stylistic editing, structural reorganization).
c) Full responsibility for the content, accuracy, originality, and integrity of the manuscript rests exclusively with the human author(s).

Accordingly, the ethical issue at stake is not the use of AI-assisted tools per se, but the potential misrepresentation of authorship or the delegation of intellectual responsibility.

Editorial Practice and AI-Detection Tools
Consistent with COPE guidance, the Er(r)go. Theory - Literature - Culture does not rely on AI-detection software as decisive evidence in editorial or peer-review decision-making. Such tools are not considered sufficiently reliable to distinguish between AI-assisted editing and original scholarly writing. Editorial evaluation is therefore governed by the principles of transparency, proportionality, and accountability, rather than automated detection.

Authors are requested to include a brief statement describing whether and how AI tools were used in the preparation of their submission. This statement is intended to promote ethical clarity and does not prejudice editorial or peer-review outcomes.

COPE Reference
This policy is grounded in the official COPE position statement:
COPE Council. COPE position – Authorship and AI – English.
https://doi.org/10.24318/cCVRZBms
© 2024 Committee on Publication Ethics (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
https://publicationethics.org