Policies on AI/LLM

Policies on AI/LLM

Policies on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Large Language Models (LLMs)

Last modified: June 16, 2026

These policies were prepared by Jenny Teresita Guerra González, María de Jesús Madera Jaramillo, and Pamela Allende González.

For authors:

  1. Since no artificial intelligence tool can assume responsibility –an inherent authorial trait– the journal will not consider for editorial processing any submissions that list such tools as authors or co-authors.
  2. The use of AI-powered tools in the conduct of research must be disclosed in the methodology section of the submission. This section must include the purposes for which the tools were used in the research, as well as the names of the tools used, their versions, their developers, the dates of use, and the prompts employed.
  3. The use of artificial intelligence tools to generate paratextual content and graphics derived from a conceptual synthesis already carried out by the authors –such as questionnaires, figures, or tables– must be disclosed. Similarly, this disclosure must include the tools used, their versions, their developers, the dates of use, and the prompts used, and must be presented as a footnote to these paratextual elements.
  4. The journal permits the use of artificial intelligence tools solely for spell-checking and grammar checking of the submission, which includes the use of punctuation and accents, confusion with homophones, capitalization, and agreement errors. These tools shall not be used for drafting text or for significant transformation of the submission. Permitted uses must be disclosed in the AI Use Statement required during submission, which must specify the tools used, their versions, dates of use, prompts (if any), and the specific purposes of use. However, and on the premise that these tools must be used under qualified supervision, we strongly recommend resorting to specialized services for text reviewing, proofreading, writing, and translation –when the submission requires it– so that, before it is proposed for publication, it meets the requirements of readability, linguistic appropriateness, structure, syntax, citation and referencing, as well as consistency among its sections, as specified in the self-assessment form.
  5. The journal does not permit the use of artificial intelligence tools to resolve the requirements issued by the editorial team during the editorial evaluation of manuscripts. These requirements are primarily related to adherence to the journal’s editorial style guidelines for citations and references and require careful and detailed scrutiny to ensure transparency and consistency in the literature referred to in the manuscript.
  6. In the AI Use Statement required for submitting a manuscript to Investigación Bibliotecológica, the author(s) agree(s) that the editorial team uses AI and LLM-powered services provided by the publishing institution for the editorial evaluation of their manuscripts.

 

For academic reviewers:

  1. The journal permits the use of artificial intelligence tools acquired and evaluated by the reviewers’ affiliation institutions.
  2. The use of these tools is permitted to detect similarities and possible plagiarism, to verify the authenticity of sources in the reference list, to determine the percentage of content generated by AI-powered tools, and to generate a preliminary summary of the contributions that reviewers intend to assess.
  3. Original manuscripts may be loaded into the artificial intelligence tool selected and endorsed by the reviewers, provided that the tool is configured in private/local mode and it is guaranteed that the text supplied will not be used as training data.
  4. Artificial intelligence tools must not be used to draft the final report on a submission (academic assessment). Likewise, the final decision on whether or not to publish a submission rests with the reviewers, not with the artificial intelligence tool.
  5. To ensure transparency in the peer review process, academic reviewers must notify the editorial team whether or not they used artificial intelligence tools. If they used these tools, they must also provide the following information:
    1. Specify the tool’s model, version, developer, date of access or use, and the prompts used to support the review.
    2. Describe how they were used, for what purpose, and in which part of the review.
    3. Confirm that they have reviewed and verified the content generated by these tools, that they assume responsibility for their use, and that they have provided a description of the generated content as required by the journal.

 

For the editorial team:

  1. The use of artificial intelligence tools or large language models is authorized, provided that they have been acquired and evaluated by the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
  2. Artificial intelligence tools or those incorporating large language models will be used to detect similarities and possible plagiarism, to verify the authenticity of sources in the reference list, and to determine the percentage of content generated by AI-powered tools.
  3. During the editorial review, the submission will be analyzed using the iThenticate similarity detection service as well as Compilatio to detect the use of generative artificial intelligence.
  4. During the pre-review editorial evaluation and post-review proofreading processes, the editorial team uses a tool to cross-check the bibliographic data reported in the reference list; the computer code for its local installation was generated through the training of a generative artificial intelligence tool.
  5. The editorial team uses artificial intelligence as a resource and remains fully responsible for the editorial process, final decisions, and communication with authors.

 

Bibliography

Bohdana, Doskaliuk, Olena Zimba, Marlen Yessirkepov, Iryna Klishch and Roman Yatsyshyn. 2025. “Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review: Enhancing Efficiency while Preserving Integrity.” Journal of Korean Medical Science 40 (7), e92. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e92

Calamur, Harini, and Roohi Ghosh. 2024. “Adapting Peer Review for the Future: Digital Disruptions and Trust in Peer Review.” Learned Publishing 37 (1): 49-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1594

Cárdenas, Julián. 2023. “Inteligencia artificial, investigación y revisión por pares: escenarios futuros y estrategias de acción.” Revista Española de Sociología 32 (4), a184. https://doi.org/10.22325/fes/res.2023.184

Chubb, Jennifer, Peter Cowling, and Darren Reed. 2022. “Speeding up to Keep up: Exploring the Use of AI in the Research Process.” AI & Society 37 (4): 1439-57.            https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01259-0

Committee on Publication Ethics. n. d. “About COPE.” Committee on Publication Ethics. Accessed May 10, 2026. https://publicationethics.org/about

Committee on Publication Ethics. 2017. “Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.” Guidance. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9

Committee on Publication Ethics. 2021. “Discussion Document: Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Decision Making.” Guidance. https://doi.org/10.24318/9kvAgrnJ

Committee on Publication Ethics. 2024. “Flowcharts and Infographics — What to Consider When Asked to Peer Review a Manuscript.” Guidance. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.17

Elsevier. n. d. “Generative AI Policies for Journals.” Publishing Ethics Resource Kit for Editors. Accessed May 10, 2026. https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/generative-ai-policies-for-journals#2-for-reviewers

Garcia, Manuel B. 2024. “Using AI Tools in Writing Peer Review Reports: Should Academic Journals Embrace the Use of ChatGPT?”. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 52: 39-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03299-7

Grebenshchikova, E.G. 2025. “Transformation of Scientific Peer Review under the Influence of Artificial Intelligence: Opportunities and Risks.” Scientific and Technical Information Processing 52 (4): 369-73. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688225700777

Gross, Zoë. 2025. “Rethinking Peer Review in the AI Era: Peer Review Week 2025 (Part 2).” SciProfiles. September 16, 2025. https://sciprofiles.com/blog/45/rethinking-peer-review-in-the-ai-era-peer-review-week-2025-part-2

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. n. d. a. “About ICMJE.” International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Accessed May 10, 2026. https://www.icmje.org/about-icmje/

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. n. d. b. “Use of AI by Reviewers.” Recommendations. Accessed May 10, 2026. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/artificial-intelligence/ai-use-by-reviewers.html

Ishikawa Porras, Alexis, and Cristian Altez Arias. 2025. “Uso de IA en la revisión por pares (Peer Review): una revisión sistemática con PRISMA 2020, ROBINS-I y CASPe.” Revista Internacional de Ciencias Sociales 4 (3): 1-13. https://doi.org/10.57188/RICSO.2025.754

Kankanhalli, Atreyi. 2024. “Peer Review in the Age of Generative AI.”  Journal of the Association for Information Systems 25 (1): 76-84. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00865

Li, Zhi-Qiang, Hui-Lin Xu, Hui-Juan Cao, Zhao-Lan Liu, Yu-Tong Fei and Jian-Ping Liu. 2024. “Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review among Top 100 Medical Journals.” JAMA Network Open 7 (12), e2448609. https://10.1001.org/jamanetworkopen.2024.48609

Revistas UNAM. n. d. “Revistas de investigación”. Portal de Revistas Académicas y Arbitradas de la UNAM. Accessed April 14, 2026. https://revistas.unam.mx/catalogo/revistasPorTipo?tipo=Investigaci%C3%B3n

World Association of Medical Editors. n. d. “About Us.” World Association of Medical Editors. Accessed May 10, 2026. https://www.wame.org/about

Yoo, Jin-Hong. 2025. “Defining the Boundaries of AI Use in Scientific Writing: A Comparative Review of Editorial Policies.” Journal of Korean Medical Science 40 (23), e187. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e187

Zheng, Haoyi, and Huichun Zhan. 2023. “ChatGPT in Scientific Writing: A Cautionary Tale.” The American Journal of Medicine 136 (8): 725-26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2023.02.011

Zielinski, Chris, Margaret A. Winker, Rakesh Aggarwal, Lorraine E. Ferris, Markus Heinemann, Jose Florencio Lapeña Jr, Sanjay A. Pai, et. al. 2023. “Recomendaciones de WAME sobre ‘chatbots’ e inteligencia artificial generativa en relación con las publicaciones académicas.” Colombia Médica 54 (3), e1015868. http://doi.org/10.25100/cm.v54i3.5868