Framework policy for the use of content generators in the publications of the UKSW Scientific Publishing House and journals published by the UKSW

Guidelines for Authors

The policy concerns the use of content generators in the process of writing a scientific text. However, this policy does not cover the use of content generators to analyse and draw conclusions from the data as part of the research process.

If authors use content generators or other AI-assisted tools in the writing process, these tools should only be used to improve the readability of the text and language of the work. The use of content generators should take place under human supervision, and the authors should carefully check and edit the result, because the content generators may result in statements that sound authoritative, which may be incorrect, incomplete or biased. In the end, it is the authors who are responsible for the content of the work.

Authors should disclose in their manuscript the use of content generators and other AI-assisted tools. The relevant statement in this regard should be included in the publication. This promotes transparency and trust between the authors, readers, reviewers, editors and contributors, and facilitates compliance with the terms of use of the relevant tool.
Authors should not list content generators and other AI-assisted tools as authors or co-authors or cite the content generator as an author. Authorship involves responsibilities and tasks that can be assigned and performer exclusively by people.

Each (co-)author is responsible for ensuring that issues of accuracy or integrity of any part of the work will be investigated and resolved accordingly, and authorship requires the ability to approve the final version of the work and agree to its submission. Authors are also responsible for ensuring that the work is original, so that all the listed authors meet the criteria for authorship and that the work does not violate the rights of third parties. Authors should also read our policy on ethics in publishing before submitting the work.

Content generators or other AI-assisted tools may not be used to create or modify images in the submitted manuscripts. This is because it could result in correcting, moving, deleting or inserting of a particular feature of an image or figure.

Adjustments to brightness, contrast or colour balance are acceptable, as long as they do not interfere with or eliminate the information contained in the original. Forensic tools for image analysis or specialised software can be used in the submitted manuscripts to detect suspicious irregularities in the images.

The only exception is when the use of content generators or other AI-assisted tool is part of a research project or research method (for example, in the case of AI-based approaches in imaging aimed at generating or interpreting research data, as in the field of biomedical imaging). If this is the case, it should be described in the research methods section in a manner enabling reproduction, explaining how AI systems were used in the process of image creation or modification and the model or tool name, version number and manufacturer should be provided. Authors should follow specific rules regarding the use of AI software and ensure the correct assignment of content. If applicable, authors may be asked to provide images used as input data and/or raw composition images used to create the final submitted versions for editorial evaluation.

The use of content generators or other AI-assisted tools in the creation of graphics, such as graphic abstracts, is not allowed. The use of content generators for creating cover illustrations may be allowed in some cases, provided that the author obtains prior approval from the editor and publisher of the journal, provides proof that all necessary rights to use the appropriate material have been obtained and ensures that the content is correctly attributed.

Guidelines for reviewers

Reviewers should not send the content of the submitted manuscript or parts of the manuscript to the generators as input data, as this may violate the author’s confidentiality and proprietary rights and, where the work contains personal data, it may violate data privacy rights. This confidentiality requirement also applies to the review report, as it may contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or authors. For this reason, reviewers should not send their review reports as input data to content generators, even if the aim is to improve language and readability.

Scientific review is a key component of the scientific system. Reviewing a scientific manuscript involves a responsibility that can only be carried out by people. Content generators or other AI-assisted tools should not be used by reviewers to assist in the scientific evaluation of the work, as critical thinking and original judgement needed for a scientific peer review go beyond the scope of these tools, and there is a risk that the results returned by the tools will contain incorrect, incomplete or biased conclusions about the manuscript. The reviewer is responsible for the content of the review report.

Guidelines for editors

The submitted manuscript must be treated as a confidential document. Editors should not submit the manuscript or parts of it as input data to content generators, as this may violate the confidentiality and proprietary rights of the authors, and where the work contains personal data, it may violate data privacy rights.

Criteria for the Qualification and Rejection of Scientific Articles Submitted to the “Cultural Studies Supplement”

1. General Principles

Every scientific article submitted to the “Cultural Studies Supplement” is subject to an initial assessment by members of the Editorial Board. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether the text meets the basic requirements for being sent for external scholarly review.

The Editorial Board’s preliminary decision is based primarily on:

1. the article’s compatibility with the journal’s academic profile;
2. the scientific nature of the text;
3. its potential scholarly value and originality;
4. methodological and argumentative soundness;
5. compliance with publication ethics standards;
6. fulfilment of the journal’s basic formal requirements.

Meeting the formal requirements does not automatically mean that a text will be qualified for review. The decision to send an article to reviewers is based primarily on its scholarly merits and on an assessment of the relevance of its subject matter and character to the concept of the planned issues.

2. Criteria for Initial Editorial Qualification

2.1. Compatibility with the Journal’s Profile

Texts that fall within the broadly understood field of cultural studies and related disciplines and perspectives are eligible for further consideration, including, among others, cultural and religious studies, cultural anthropology, sociology of culture, media studies, literary studies, film studies, theatre studies, audiovisual culture studies, and other interdisciplinary research on culture.

In the case of thematic issues or sections, the degree to which the article corresponds to the subject matter of the relevant section is also taken into account.

Grounds for rejection at the editorial stage: the subject matter of the article falls outside the journal’s profile or does not fit the substantive concept of the issue, and the connection between the subject addressed and cultural studies is marginal.

2.2. Scientific Character of the Article

An article should constitute a scholarly text and, in particular, should:

• formulate an identifiable research problem, research question, or scholarly objective;
• present a specific position, hypothesis, or thesis;
• base its argumentation on an appropriately selected body of material;
• disclose the theoretical and/or methodological perspective adopted, as appropriate to the nature of the research;
• lead to conclusions resulting from the analysis conducted;
• refer to the existing state of research to the extent necessary for the problem addressed.

The following may, in particular, constitute grounds for rejection prior to peer review:

• justified doubts concerning the originality of the text and/or its authorship;
• a purely descriptive, popularising, journalistic, or essayistic character of the text;
• the absence of an identifiable research problem;
• replacing analysis with summaries of works, events, concepts, or the views of other scholars;
• the absence of argumentation sufficient to regard the conclusions as scientifically justified;
• a fundamental inconsistency between the declared objective, the method applied, the material analysed, and the conclusions.

2.3. Originality and Scholarly Value

An article should make a recognisable contribution to existing research. Originality does not necessarily require addressing a completely new topic; it may also consist in:

• a new interpretation of familiar material;
• applying a new theoretical or methodological perspective;
• bringing together phenomena previously analysed separately;
• using new research material;
• revising previous findings;
• developing or challenging an existing scholarly debate.

A lack of recognisable added value in relation to the existing state of research may constitute grounds for rejection, particularly when the article is limited to reproducing widely known findings.

2.4. State of Research and Use of Scholarly Literature

The author should demonstrate familiarity with publications relevant to the problem addressed.

In particular, the following are subject to assessment:

• the appropriateness of the literature cited;
• consideration of key studies;
• the use of the current state of research where justified by the nature of the problem;
• the actual use of the literature in the argumentation, rather than merely citing it;
• a correct distinction between the findings of the article’s author and those of other researchers.

A text should not automatically be disqualified because of individual bibliographic omissions if these can be remedied during the peer-review process.

Substantive grounds for rejecting an article prior to peer review may be ethical or scholarly in nature. For example, these may include a fundamental lack of knowledge of the state of research resulting in the author presenting long-established findings from the literature as new, or building an argument on outdated or arbitrarily selected sources.

2.5. Methodology, Analysis, and Argumentation

An article should maintain coherence between the research problem, research material, research method/perspective, analysis, and conclusions. The research method should be appropriate to the subject of the study.

The following may, among other things, constitute grounds for a negative qualification:

• serious methodological errors;
• conclusions that do not follow from the analysis presented;
• selective use of material solely to confirm a preconceived thesis;
• unjustified generalisations;
• fundamental contradictions in the argumentation;
• a lack of material permitting verification of the reasoning presented;
• unreliable use of the relevant literature.

3. Ethical Standards

Only original texts that have not previously been published in Polish and have not been simultaneously submitted for publication to another journal may be sent for review.

Authors are required to properly identify quotations and borrowings and to respect copyright.

Authors should disclose:

• the actual contribution of all co-authors;
• sources of research funding;
• potential conflicts of interest;
• other information required by the current UKSW ethics policy and policy on the use of artificial intelligence tools.

The following are particularly unacceptable:

• knowingly providing unreliable or non-existent sources;
• plagiarism;
• undisclosed self-plagiarism;
• fabrication or falsification of data, or knowingly providing unreliable or non-existent sources;
• ghostwriting;
• guest/gift authorship;
• citation manipulation;
• copyright infringement;
• other serious violations of the principles of research integrity.

A finding of a serious ethical violation constitutes grounds for rejecting an article regardless of its other scholarly merits.

In cases of suspected ethical violations, the Editorial Board acts in accordance with the current UKSW publication ethics policy.

4. Formal Requirements

The Editorial Board verifies the text’s compliance with the basic requirements for authors, in particular the presence of the required metadata, abstract, keywords, bibliography, and other elements stipulated by the current journal guidelines and the policies of the UKSW Scientific Publishing House.

The recommended length of an article is 20,000–40,000 characters including spaces (including metadata).

Minor technical or editorial shortcomings should not, in themselves, constitute grounds for the substantive rejection of a valuable article. In such cases, the text may be returned to the author for adjustment before the peer-review procedure begins.

Refusal to make the required formal changes or the inability to adapt the text to basic publication standards may result in the termination of the editorial process.

5. Possible Decisions Following the Editorial Board’s Initial Assessment

a. Acceptance of the text for peer review;

b. Return of the text to the author prior to peer review for the purpose of introducing additions, clarifications, or corrections;

c. Editorial rejection without sending the text for peer review. The decision to reject a text at the editorial stage should indicate the principal reason for terminating its consideration.

6. Criteria for the Reviewers’ Assessment of the Article

An article submitted to the double-blind peer-review procedure receives at least two independent reviews.

Reviewers are advised to assess, in particular:

1. the significance and validity of the research problem addressed;
2. the originality of the article and its contribution to existing research, or other particular merits of the text;
3. knowledge and appropriate use of the existing state of research;
4. the adequacy of the theoretical and methodological perspective adopted;
5. the selection and use of the research material;
6. the logic, coherence, and strength of the argumentation;
7. the extent to which the conclusions follow from the analyses conducted;
8. the structure, clarity, and precision of the scholarly argument;
9. the overall scholarly quality of the text and its usefulness to the journal’s readership.

Reviewers should formulate their comments objectively and substantiate their reservations.

7. Review Conclusions

A review may conclude with one of three decisions:

1. Accepted for publication without revisions;
2. Accepted subject to editorial revisions;
3. The article is not suitable for publication.

8. Divergent Reviews

If one review is positive or conditionally positive and the other is negative, the Editorial Board:

• may decide to accept or reject the article, providing a written justification for its decision; or
• may refer the article to a third reviewer.

The final responsibility for the publication decision rests with the Editorial Board.

9. Overriding Principle

The assessment of an article should concern its scholarly quality and formal correctness, integrity, compliance with the journal’s profile, and adherence to applicable publishing policies.

The decision must not be influenced by the author’s academic degree or title, academic position, institutional affiliation, age, nationality, or any other circumstances unrelated to the scholarly value of the submitted text.