• Non-Authorship of AI: Large Language Models (LLMs) and generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, or similar software) do not meet the criteria for authorship. They cannot take responsibility for published work, hold copyright, or manage conflict-of-interest disclosures. AI tools must not be listed as an author or co-author under any circumstances.
• Author Accountability: Human authors remain fully responsible and accountable for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and theoretical assertions of the entire manuscript, including any portion assisted by AI tools. Authors are responsible for preventing plagiarism, hallucinated citations, or misleading data interpretations generated by AI.
• Permitted Use: Authors may use AI tools to improve readability, language clarity, formatting, or translation. AI may also be used as a research tool (e.g., for initial data processing or literature screening in systematic reviews), provided the methodology is clearly documented and reproducible.
• Mandatory Disclosure: Authors must explicitly disclose the use of AI technologies upon submission. A dedicated AI Usage Statement must be included in the manuscript before the reference section, detailing which AI tool was used, the software version, and the precise purpose of its application.

• Confidentiality Protection: Peer reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading submitted manuscripts (or any part of them, including titles, abstracts, and full texts) into generative AI tools or commercial LLMs. Doing so violates author confidentiality and proprietary intellectual property rights.
• Authentic Evaluation: Review reports must reflect the reviewer’s own independent critical judgment, expert evaluation, and original scholarly analysis. Generating peer review reports or evaluation summaries using AI tools is strictly forbidden.

• Confidentiality in Editorial Decisions: Editors must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. Editors must not feed manuscript text, data, or peer review drafts into unvetted AI tools for evaluation, reviewer selection, or decision generation.
• Editorial Discretion: Editorial decisions regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection are executed solely by the human editorial board. Editors evaluate AI disclosures provided by authors to ensure compliance with ISSR policies and ethical standards.

Generating synthetic research data, artificial empirical observations, or manipulated images using generative AI is treated as severe scientific misconduct (data fabrication/falsification). Generative AI image tools must not be used to create or alter empirical figures, charts, or conceptual diagrams unless the manuscript specifically investigates generative AI visual phenomena as part of its research methodology.

Option A (No AI used):

"The author(s) confirm that no artificial intelligence (AI) or AI-assisted technologies were used in the research design, data collection, analysis, or drafting of this manuscript."

Option B (AI used for language editing/translation):

"During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [Name of Tool/Version] to [improve language clarity/translate text]. The author(s) reviewed and edited the output as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the published article."

Option C (AI used as part of research methodology):

"Artificial intelligence tools ([Name of Tool/Version]) were utilized for [specific research process, e.g., web scraping, text classification, initial coding]. The protocol, prompts, and analytical boundaries are fully detailed in the Research Methods section."