Responsible & Ethical Use of AI in JFS Submissions
The Journal of Futures Studies recognises that generative AI is now part of the research environment. These technologies may support writing, but they must not replace the intellectual work of the scholar. The journal adopts a clear position: AI may assist, but it must not author. All submitted work must remain a product of human reasoning, judgement, and accountability.
Futures Studies is concerned with responsibility, imagination, and the shaping of preferred futures. These principles also guide how knowledge is produced. AI may support the work, but it cannot replace the thinker. The integrity of the journal depends on maintaining this distinction.
AI for Writing Support
Authors may use AI tools for limited, technical support, including grammar and spelling correction, improving clarity and readability, and light language editing. These uses must not alter the substance of the work. All intellectual content must originate from the author.
Responsible Use of AI
AI tools must be used in ways that preserve the author’s intellectual responsibility. Authors must retain full control over all core research tasks, including developing literature reviews, forming arguments and theoretical framing, analysing and interpreting data, drawing conclusions, and identifying and verifying references and citations. These tasks define scholarly contribution and must remain human-led.
If AI tools shape or substitute these activities, this must be explicitly disclosed and justified. Failure to do so will be treated as a breach of academic integrity. Recent legal developments underscore this responsibility. Courts have affirmed that reliance on AI-generated material, particularly when it introduces fabricated sources, constitutes serious academic misconduct. Authors remain fully accountable for the accuracy, validity, and integrity of all content.
Accountability and Scholarly Responsibility
AI is not a search engine. It produces outputs that may appear authoritative but can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Authors must verify every source and citation, ensure that all claims are evidence-based, and maintain a clear chain of reasoning from data to conclusion. Responsibility for the manuscript rests entirely with the human author.
Authorship
AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. Authorship requires intellectual contribution, accountability for content, and the ability to approve and defend the work. These are human responsibilities.
Here’s a guide from APA Style on How to Cite ChatGPT. https://apastyle.apa.org/blog/how-to-cite-chatgpt
Disclosure and Transparency
Full disclosure is required. Authors must include a clear statement specifying which AI tools were used, how they were used, and the extent of their involvement. This statement should appear in the acknowledgements or methods section. Lack of disclosure may lead to rejection or retraction.
Ethical Framing
The journal distinguishes between AI-assisted work, where the author retains full control, and AI-generated work, where the machine shapes the thinking. The guiding principle is simple: the author must remain the origin of insight, not the editor of machine output.
Writing Standard
All submissions should be written in clear and direct prose. Use short, precise sentences and prefer the active voice. Avoid unnecessary jargon and use terms that readers can readily understand. Be explicit about roles, claims, and sources so that responsibility is clear throughout the manuscript. Clarity is part of ethical writing, as it allows ideas to be examined, challenged, and built upon.
All submissions must comply with APA 7th edition writing and referencing style. This includes consistent in-text citations, a complete and accurate reference list, and the use of DOIs where available. The journal does not use footnotes. All substantive content, explanations, and citations should be integrated into the main text.
Word Limits
Adhere to the journal’s word limits:
- Full-length articles: up to 8,000 words
- Essays, reports, and book reviews: up to 5,000 words
- Perspectives: up to 3,500 words
Submissions that exceed these limits may be returned for revision.
On Revision and Scholarly Craft
Authors are encouraged to approach writing as an iterative process. Strong manuscripts are rarely produced in a single draft. Experienced scholars often revise their work many times before publication. A typical paper may go through at least five rounds of revision, and often up to eight before it reaches publishable quality. This is normal and reflects care, depth, and intellectual rigour.
While AI tools may assist with early drafting or language refinement, they do not replace the need for sustained revision. Each round of rewriting strengthens clarity, argument, and contribution. Authors are asked to be patient with the process. Careful revision is part of scholarly responsibility.