Conflicts & AI Policy
Conflicts of Interest & AI Policy
Conflicts of interest
All authors, editors and reviewers must declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could be perceived to influence the work.
Examples of declarable conflicts
- Financial relationships (employment, consultancy, grants, stock ownership) with organisations related to the research subject
- Personal relationships (family, close friendships, recent collaborations)
- Intellectual or ideological commitments that may bias the analysis
- Institutional affiliations that may be perceived as biasing
Disclosure procedure
- A conflict-of-interest statement is required in the manuscript before submission
- If no conflicts exist, the authors must state: "The authors declare no conflicts of interest"
- Reviewers and editors recuse themselves where conflicts arise
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools
The conference follows current international guidance (WAME, COPE, ICMJE) on the use of generative AI in scholarly work.
Permitted uses
- Language editing and proofreading assistance
- Suggestions for clarity, grammar and style
- Literature search and reference discovery (results must be verified by the author)
- Statistical software automation under author supervision
Prohibited uses
- Listing AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Llama) as authors
- Use of AI to generate fabricated data, references or results
- Use of AI to compose substantial portions of original research analysis without disclosure
- Use of AI to evade plagiarism detection
Disclosure of AI use
If generative AI tools were used in any aspect of the manuscript preparation beyond minor language editing, authors must:
- Disclose the tool name, version and date used
- Describe the specific task it was used for
- Confirm human review and verification of all AI-generated output
The disclosure must appear in the Methods section or in a dedicated "Use of Generative AI" statement.
Reviewer use of AI
Reviewers are not permitted to upload manuscripts or any part of them to external AI systems, as this would breach the confidentiality of the peer review process.