Policy on Artificial Intelligence followed by
Journal of Research in Traditional Medicine
This policy governs the use of artificial intelligence (AI), including generative AI, by authors, peer reviewers, editors, and editorial staff. JRTM permits responsible AI assistance subject to disclosure, human verification, confidentiality, and the restrictions below. Responsibility for research integrity and editorial decisions remains with people.
1. Scope and human accountability
This policy applies to manuscripts, supplementary materials, figures, correspondence, peer review reports, and editorial work. It covers tools that generate, translate, summarise, rewrite, analyse, or interpret text, images, audio, video, data, or code, including AI features embedded within other software.
AI tools must not be listed as authors or co-authors. All named authors must satisfy JRTM’s authorship requirements, approve the final manuscript, and accept responsibility for its content. Authors remain accountable for AI-related errors, bias, plagiarism, inaccurate references, and breaches of confidentiality.
2. Permitted author assistance
Authors may use AI to improve language and readability, translate their own text, organise material, support literature discovery, and assist with coding or analysis. Such use must preserve the authors’ substantive intellectual contribution and be independently checked. AI output is not a substitute for reading original sources or evaluating scientific evidence.
AI must not be used to fabricate or falsify research, create fictitious references or quotations, misrepresent clinical observations, conceal plagiarism, or present generated content as independently obtained evidence. Any synthetic data used legitimately in methodological research must be clearly identified and must never be represented as observations from real participants.
3. Mandatory disclosure
Every submission must include a statement headed “Declaration of AI Use” before the references, stating whether generative AI was used. Authors must also disclose relevant use in the cover letter or submission form and update the declaration after revision.
For each substantive use, provide the tool and provider, model or version where available, dates of use, purpose, affected sections or materials, and the verification performed by the authors. Disclose drafting, substantive rewriting, summarisation, translation, literature assistance, and AI-assisted creation of code or figures.
Routine spelling, punctuation, and basic grammar checks do not require declaration when they do not generate content or substantially rewrite the text. Conventional reference management and routine non-generative software functions are also exempt from the AI declaration. Relevant analytical software must still be reported in Methods.
4. AI in research methods
When AI forms part of study design, data collection, screening, extraction, analysis, interpretation, or code development, authors must describe its role in Methods, in addition to the declaration. Report the tool, version, relevant settings and prompts, input data, human checks, validation, limitations, and potential bias sufficiently to permit assessment and, where feasible, reproducibility.
Retain relevant prompts, outputs, code, and validation records and provide them for editorial assessment when requested, subject to privacy and other legitimate restrictions. AI use does not remove requirements for ethics approval, consent, registration, appropriate reporting guidelines, or responsible data sharing.
5. References and traditional medicine sources
Authors must verify every reference against the original publication or a reliable bibliographic record and confirm that the cited source supports the associated claim. An AI-generated answer must not be cited as evidence for a scientific or clinical claim. When AI output itself is the subject of research, it must be identified and documented as study material.
Classical quotations, Sanskrit passages, translations, formulations, botanical identities, and traditional indications require verification against authoritative sources. Identify the text, edition, chapter, verse or page as appropriate. Clearly distinguish original passages from translations, commentaries, interpretations, and hypotheses. AI must not be used to invent classical citations or imply clinical efficacy unsupported by the evidence.
6. Figures and other media
AI must not fabricate, selectively alter, or misleadingly enhance patient photographs, radiological images, microscopy, laboratory images, or other primary evidence. Research specifically evaluating AI-generated or AI-processed material may be considered when the method is explicit, original materials are retained, and generated outputs are clearly distinguished from observed evidence.
AI-assisted explanatory diagrams and conceptual illustrations may be submitted if scientifically accurate, appropriately labelled, and checked by the authors. They must not masquerade as authentic clinical or experimental images. Disclose the tool, version where available, and its role in both the caption and the AI declaration.
Charts and other data visualisations must faithfully represent the underlying data. AI-assisted code or analytical workflows must be validated and described sufficiently for reproducibility. These integrity requirements also apply to audio, video, and supplementary materials.
7. Confidentiality and sensitive information
Authors must not enter identifiable patient information, confidential research data, or restricted material into an AI tool unless the use is authorised and the necessary consent or other valid basis, institutional requirements, and data protections are satisfied. De-identification must consider the risk of re-identification.
Users must assess the tool’s terms, retention, training use, third-party access, and intellectual property conditions before entering material. A paid subscription or a “private” label alone does not establish adequate protection. Where safeguards are uncertain, confidential material must not be uploaded.
8. Peer reviewers
Reviewers shall personally assess the manuscript and formulate their own scientific evaluation and recommendation. They shall not delegate peer review to AI or use AI to generate substantive critiques or publication recommendations.
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, excerpts, figures, supplementary files, review reports, or identifying summaries to external AI tools. Any proposed exception for limited assistance requires prior written permission from JRTM and an explicitly approved environment with adequate confidentiality safeguards.
Basic local spelling and grammar checks that do not transmit confidential content externally are permitted. Any approved generative AI assistance must be disclosed to the handling editor, including the tool, purpose, and extent of use. Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and originality of their reports.
9. Editors and editorial staff
Editors and staff will protect submitted material to the same standard as reviewers. Only tools approved by JRTM after assessment of confidentiality, data handling, and fitness for purpose may process confidential submissions.
Approved tools may support administrative checks, reference verification, integrity screening, and language assistance. Editors must independently evaluate relevant outputs. Acceptance, rejection, ethical determinations, and appeals must remain human decisions; AI must not serve as the sole decision-maker.
JRTM will describe substantive AI use in its editorial processes in its public policies and inform affected authors when necessary to explain an assessment. Material concerns raised by automated tools must be checked against the manuscript and supporting evidence.
10. Screening and suspected violations
JRTM will not treat an AI detector score as conclusive evidence of AI use, misconduct, or authorship. No fixed percentage of “AI-generated text” determines acceptance. Editorial assessment will consider disclosure, originality, evidence quality, source accuracy, and compliance with this policy.
When concerns arise, the journal will request an explanation, source documents, original images or data, or relevant AI-use records. Authors or reviewers will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond. Disclosed, permitted AI assistance alone is not grounds for rejection.
Responses to established violations will be proportionate to their nature, intent, and effect on the reliability of the work. They may include clarification, a revised declaration, rejection, correction, an expression of concern, or retraction. Serious cases may be referred to the relevant institution or other appropriate body. Reviewers or editors who breach confidentiality or integrity requirements may be removed from the assignment or role.
Author declaration examples
Authors should adapt the examples below to describe their actual use. A declaration does not make a prohibited use acceptable.
When generative AI was used
“During preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [tool, provider, model/version] on [dates] for [specific purpose] in [sections/materials]. The authors verified the resulting content against [sources, data, or other checks], revised it as necessary, and accept full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the manuscript. [Where applicable: AI use in the research methods is described in the Methods section.]”
When generative AI was not used
“The authors declare that no generative AI tools were used in the research or preparation of this manuscript.”
Submission confirmation
The corresponding author must confirm that all authors have reviewed the AI declaration, that any relevant research use is reported in Methods, and that references and source quotations have been verified. Any AI-assisted figures must carry the required caption disclosure.
Policy sources
Sources consulted on 2 October 2026. JRTM sets its own requirements; these sources do not imply endorsement.
ICMJE. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Publishing.
https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/artificial-intelligence/
BMJ. AI use.
https://authors.bmj.com/policies/ai-use/
Elsevier. Generative AI policies for journals.
https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/generative-ai-policies-for-journals
JAMA. Updated Guidance for Author Use of AI in Medical Publication. Published 10 August 2026. doi:10.1001/jama.2026.16613.