Majalah Anestesia & Critical Care (MACC) recognises that artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including generative AI systems and large language models, may assist researchers and authors with selected research and writing tasks. The journal permits responsible AI assistance when authors maintain scientific integrity, transparency, confidentiality, and human accountability. This policy follows the principles outlined in COPE, Authorship and AI Tools, which addresses AI authorship, disclosure, and responsibility for submitted content.

MACC requires all authors, editors, and reviewers to use AI tools responsibly and in accordance with the journal's publication ethics requirements. AI assistance must not compromise the originality, accuracy, confidentiality, or reliability of scholarly work. The journal applies this policy alongside its existing Journal Policies and Author Guidelines. COPE discusses the benefits, limitations, confidentiality risks, and responsible use of AI in scholarly peer review in Artificial Intelligence and Peer Review.

Authors may use AI tools to support appropriate tasks, such as improving language clarity, correcting grammar, organising text, assisting with preliminary literature exploration, or supporting selected analytical tasks. Authors must independently verify all AI-assisted content and ensure that the final manuscript accurately represents the research, evidence, methods, and conclusions. AI-generated text must not replace critical scientific judgement or independent verification of sources and data. COPE states that authors remain fully responsible for manuscript content, including content generated by AI tools. See COPE, Authorship and AI Tools.

Authors must not use AI tools to fabricate or falsify research data, invent references, create misleading results, manipulate scientific images, conceal relevant findings, or produce deceptive descriptions of research methods. Authors must verify the existence and accuracy of references, quotations, statistical outputs, and other factual claims generated or suggested by AI systems. Any use of AI that affects data collection, data processing, statistical analysis, image production, or scientific interpretation requires careful human verification and transparent disclosure. These requirements implement MACC's proposed standards for responsible AI use and are consistent with COPE's position on author accountability in Authorship and AI Tools.

AI systems, chatbots, large language models, and other AI tools must not be listed as authors or co-authors of manuscripts submitted to MACC. Authorship requires human accountability for the work, including responsibility for the accuracy of the content, conflicts of interest, copyright, and publication agreements. AI systems cannot fulfil these responsibilities. This requirement follows COPE's position on Authorship and AI Tools.

Human authors remain responsible for every part of the submitted manuscript, including material produced with AI assistance. Authors must ensure that all listed authors meet the journal's authorship criteria and that any AI contribution does not obscure the identity or responsibilities of the individuals who conducted and reported the work. For related requirements, see the MACC Author Guidelines and COPE, Authorship and AI Tools.

Authors must disclose the use of AI tools when those tools contribute to manuscript writing, the production of images or graphical elements, data collection, data processing, statistical analysis, or other substantive research activities. The disclosure must identify the tool used and explain its role in preparing or conducting the reported work. COPE explicitly recommends transparent disclosure of AI use in the Materials and Methods section or an equivalent section of the manuscript. See COPE, Authorship and AI Tools.

Authors should place the disclosure in the Methods section when AI forms part of the research methods or data analysis. For AI assistance limited to manuscript preparation, authors should use an appropriate disclosure section or statement in accordance with the journal's submission instructions. The disclosure should identify the AI tool, explain how it was used, and describe the human verification undertaken where relevant. This placement and content guidance operationalises COPE's transparency recommendation in Authorship and AI Tools.

Authors do not need to describe ordinary spelling or grammar correction by conventional non-generative software as generative AI use unless the journal specifically requests such information. When authors are uncertain whether a tool's contribution requires disclosure, they should disclose the use and explain its purpose. MACC may request clarification when the disclosure is incomplete or when the editorial team identifies a material concern about the preparation or analysis of the manuscript.

Authors who use AI tools may adapt the following statement to reflect their actual use. They must not submit this statement without checking that it accurately describes the work performed.

Declaration of Artificial Intelligence Use

If the authors did not use generative AI tools in preparing the manuscript or conducting the reported research, they may provide a statement confirming that no such tools were used, if requested by the journal. The journal may adapt the disclosure format to suit different manuscript types. This disclosure approach follows COPE's transparency and accountability principles in Authorship and AI Tools.

Authors, editors, and reviewers must protect confidential information when using AI tools. They must not upload unpublished manuscripts, confidential peer-review reports, identifiable patient information, confidential research data, or restricted editorial correspondence to external AI services unless the relevant data protection requirements, permissions, and confidentiality obligations have been satisfied and the journal expressly permits the use. Users must consider whether an AI service stores, processes, or reuses submitted information. COPE discusses the risks of exposing confidential manuscript content through AI systems in Artificial Intelligence and Peer Review.

Particular care is required for manuscripts involving patients, clinical records, medical images, or other sensitive health information. Authors must comply with applicable confidentiality, consent, and research ethics requirements and must not assume that removing a patient's name alone makes clinical information safe to upload to an external AI platform. These precautions are MACC's operational requirements for protecting confidential material and supporting responsible use of AI in medical publishing.

Editors and reviewers must exercise independent professional judgement when evaluating submitted manuscripts. They must not delegate the substantive assessment of a manuscript, the interpretation of its scientific validity, or the final editorial recommendation entirely to an AI system. AI-generated suggestions may contain inaccuracies, unsupported claims, or biases, and users must evaluate any output critically. COPE's discussion of Artificial Intelligence and Peer Review highlights both the possible benefits of AI assistance and the limitations and confidentiality risks associated with its use.

Editors and reviewers must not upload confidential manuscript files or review materials to public or external AI tools without appropriate authorisation and safeguards. They must comply with confidentiality obligations throughout the review process and must not use unpublished information for personal advantage. COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers require reviewers to respect manuscript confidentiality and to use unpublished information responsibly.

Reviewers must base their recommendations on a careful assessment of the manuscript rather than relying uncritically on AI-generated summaries, evaluations, or detection results. Editors remain responsible for editorial decisions and must evaluate the evidence and reasoning supporting those decisions. COPE discusses the need for human judgement and responsible use of AI in Artificial Intelligence and Peer Review.

Authors must ensure that AI-assisted images, figures, tables, and other visual materials accurately represent the reported research and do not mislead readers. Authors must not use generative AI to fabricate clinical images, alter research evidence deceptively, or create visual material that falsely represents an actual patient, experiment, or observation as genuine research evidence. Any permitted AI-generated or AI-modified visual material must be disclosed when relevant and must comply with the journal's requirements for image integrity, copyright, patient confidentiality, and research ethics. COPE's position requires transparency when AI tools contribute to the production of images or graphical elements. See COPE, Authorship and AI Tools.

Authors who use AI in data collection, processing, or analysis must describe the relevant methods sufficiently for readers to understand the tool's role and evaluate the reliability of the findings. Authors remain responsible for validating the results and reporting limitations introduced by the tools. AI-generated data must not be presented as observed clinical or experimental data unless the research design explicitly studies synthetic data and identifies it as such. COPE requires authors to disclose AI use in data collection and analysis and holds authors responsible for the content of the manuscript. See COPE, Authorship and AI Tools.

MACC may request clarification when the editorial team identifies credible concerns about undisclosed AI use, inaccurate AI-generated content, fabricated references, or potentially misleading research materials. The journal may ask authors to explain their methods, verify sources, provide supporting documentation, or clarify the origin of specific content. Any assessment should consider the manuscript as a whole and the available evidence rather than relying on a single indicator.

AI-detection scores or automated assessments should not, by themselves, establish research misconduct or justify rejection. The editorial team should assess the specific concern, request an explanation where appropriate, and consider the evidence fairly before making a decision. COPE's discussion of AI in peer review and its case concerning a reviewer who suspected AI use illustrate the need to consider confidentiality, policy, and the reliability of the evidence. See Artificial Intelligence and Peer Review and Reviewer Suspects Use of AI by an Author.

If the journal identifies evidence of fabricated data, falsified results, plagiarism, or other publication misconduct, it will assess the concern under its publication ethics procedures. Editorial action will depend on the nature and seriousness of the issue, the available evidence, and the authors' response. COPE provides broader principles for transparent publication ethics policies in the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

MACC may request revisions, additional disclosure, supporting evidence, or clarification when authors fail to disclose material AI use or when AI-assisted content raises concerns about accuracy, originality, confidentiality, or research integrity. The journal may reject a manuscript if the authors cannot resolve material concerns or if the evidence establishes a breach of publication ethics.

If a concern arises after publication, MACC will assess the available evidence and consider appropriate corrective action in accordance with its publication ethics policies. Such action may include a correction, an expression of concern, or retraction where justified by the evidence and the applicable standards. COPE's guidance on correcting the scholarly record is available in its Retraction Guidelines.

By submitting a manuscript to MACC, authors confirm that the manuscript complies with this AI policy. Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, confidentiality, and ethical acceptability of all submitted content. They must disclose relevant AI use, verify AI-assisted material, ensure that references and factual claims are reliable, and respond honestly to editorial requests for clarification. These responsibilities reflect COPE's position that AI tools cannot assume authorship or accountability for submitted work. See COPE, Authorship and AI Tools.

MACC will review this policy periodically to address changes in AI technology, scholarly publishing practices, confidentiality risks, and publication ethics guidance. The journal may update its requirements when necessary and will publish revised guidance on its official website. This approach reflects COPE's discussion of the need for organisations to review AI policies regularly as the technology and its implications for scholarly publishing evolve. See COPE, Artificial Intelligence and Peer Review.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Authorship and AI Tools. COPE Position. First published in 2024; page last reviewed 13 February 2023.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Artificial Intelligence and Peer Review. Publication Integrity Week 2023 discussion.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewer Suspects Use of AI by an Author. COPE case discussion, 2025.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Retraction Guidelines.

Majalah Anestesia & Critical Care (MACC). Journal Policies.

Majalah Anestesia & Critical Care (MACC). Author Guidelines and Submission Requirements.