The incorporation of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) in research and scientific publishing has opened new possibilities for knowledge creation, analysis, and communication. When used consciously and ethically, these tools can optimize tasks such as literature synthesis, grammar correction, and code generation, but they do not replace the critical thinking, creativity, or intellectual responsibility of the researcher. While GAI can be a helpful resource for research, its unregulated use poses a critical new landscape concerning transparency, academic integrity, and the reliability of results. In this context, it is essential to establish regulatory and informative policies that provide clear guidelines for the use of GAI in scientific production and publication, ensuring that academic innovation aligns with ethical principles and best academic practices.

Based on the Heredia Declaration: Principles on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Publishing, which fundamentally addresses the appropriate use of AI in scientific editing processes, this Journal of Administration and Education establishes the following rules:

Authorship: The process of academic research and writing is a complex human exercise that involves formulating questions, collecting and critically analyzing information, constructing arguments, and synthesizing knowledge. AI will never replace human authorship. The author is responsible for developing, evaluating, and taking moral and legal responsibility for the research presented in the journal. Therefore, generative AI is not credited with authorship. The journal adheres to the guidelines of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).

From this perspective, the use of GAI should be considered a supportive tool rather than a replacement for the researcher’s reflective and analytical capabilities. This means that the use of GAI models should be declared, and their role must be clearly outlined to avoid improper attribution of original thought to systems that lack genuine intent and understanding. Following the criteria of transparency and accountability, the author must specify:

• The AI model used (LLM)
• The role the GAI played in the analysis, information gathering, writing, and review processes. It is essential to report on the tool used, as well as the interconnections and integrations between models. Proper citation and reference of the model used, according to APA 7th Edition, are also required.
• The degree of human intervention in the editing and validation of the generated content.

This declaration should be made in the methodology section or in the acknowledgments, as appropriate. Furthermore, the use of GAI should be cited in accordance with the journal's referencing norms, based on APA 7th Edition.

The use of GAI does not exempt authors from their responsibility for the quality, originality, and truthfulness of the content presented. Any improper use, such as fabricating references, distorting information, or generating texts without critical validation, will be considered a serious breach of academic integrity and will justify the exclusion of the work from the review process.

Review: The peer review process is a cornerstone of scientific publishing, based on the critical evaluation by subject experts. While some GAI tools can assist in identifying stylistic or structural issues, the evaluation of conceptual, methodological, and theoretical content remains an exclusively human task. The peer review process supports the scientific quality of the journal. AI will not replace the manuscript review conducted by editors and reviewers.

Reviewers who use GAI tools to support their evaluation must:

• Inform the editorial team of their use, ensuring transparency in the process.
• Ensure that critical judgment and decision-making originate from the reviewer and not from an automated system.
• The editorial team reserves the right to reject evaluations that rely excessively on GAI, compromising the quality of the review process.

When filtered AI use is employed as support in the review process, it is mandatory, following the principle of reciprocity, to communicate this to the Editorial Team, authors, and readers.

Given the rapid evolution of technology, the journal is committed to keeping this policy updated according to the best international practices and emerging ethical discussions in the academic community. It is recommended that authors, reviewers, and editors follow the expanded guidelines in the Guide for the Use and Reporting of Artificial Intelligence in Scientific-Academic Journals, which details principles and strategies for ethical and responsible use.