Authorship Conflicts and Using AI

Authorship entails significant rights and obligations in terms of responsibility and academic integrity in the relevant academic work. To be considered an author, it is essential to have made a significant contribution to the scientific and intellectual content of the relevant academic work. All authors must confirm the accuracy and order of the author list. Authors must approve the final version of the article before submission. The corresponding author confirms that these requirements have been met when submitting the article. For a study to be published in our journal, in accordance with the ICMJE guidelines, a person must meet all of the following criteria to be considered an author:

• They must have made a significant and direct contribution to the conduct of the research or the provision of data, and to the development of the concept and design of the study.
• They must have contributed to the creation or critical review of the study draft.
• They must have approved the final version of the study before submission.
• They must be accountable for all matters related to the content of the study. They must be in a position to resolve any questions or disputes that may arise regarding academic dishonesty or the accuracy of the study.

Authors who meet all four of the given criteria should be credited as authors; those who do not should be acknowledged in the acknowledgement section.

In addition to the four main criteria mentioned above, authors should have a clear and definite conviction about the contributions of their co-authors to the work. All authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.

The corresponding author is the author responsible for maintaining all communication from the submission of the work to its publication and subsequent processes. All authors must agree on who the corresponding author will be. All correspondence regarding the peer review process, providing ethics committee documents if necessary, the revision process and subsequent resubmissions, proofreading, and final approval are handled through the corresponding author.

The contribution of each author, satisfying the authorship criteria provided above, must be identified and declared following the ANSI/NISO standard. Authors may have multiple roles based on their contributions. The corresponding author is responsible for the correctness of provided information. See the Author Guidelines on how to add this to the article.

Please visit the CRediT website or this article for the list of roles and their definitions in detail.

In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), requests to add, remove, or reorder authors are permitted only before manuscript acceptance. Authorship changes after acceptance are not allowed. Any request for an authorship change must be submitted using the Authorship Change Request Form and must include the previous list of authors and the proposed new list in the correct final order, together with a clear justification for the change. The completed form must be signed by all authors, including any author being added or removed, confirming their full agreement with the proposed change. The signed form must be scanned and submitted to the editorial office (editor@tcmis.org) for evaluation. The journal does not adjudicate authorship disputes; if unanimous agreement among all authors cannot be obtained, the manuscript may be rejected or withdrawn.

Authors are required to make a statement regarding the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, such as large language models (LLMs) or chatbots (like ChatGPT), during the submission process.

TCMIS has a strict policy regarding the use of AI-generated text, figures, images, methodology, data, or inferences. AI may only be used for linguistic corrections for writing assistance, and this must be clearly stated in the Declaration of Using AI Tools section and the cover letter.

Where AI tools are used solely for linguistic improvement (e.g., grammar, spelling, or clarity), authors must explicitly disclose this use. The disclosure must include the name of the AI tool, the specific model, and the version (e.g., GPT-4o, GPT-5.3 etc.) used for this purpose. Generic statements such as 'AI was used for editing' are not sufficient; full transparency is required.

AI should never be listed as an author, as it cannot meet the criteria specified under the authorship conditions and cannot assume responsibility for the verifiability of the work. No references should be made to any AI-generated work.

The peer-review process must be conducted solely on the basis of the reviewer’s own expertise, independent judgment, and academic responsibility.

Reviewers are strictly prohibited from using generative AI tools (including large language models or generative AI) to generate, draft, edit, or justify their review reports or recommendations. AI tools must not be used to analyze manuscripts or assist in decision-making.

Reviewers must not upload, share, or input any part of a submitted manuscript into any AI system or third-party platform, as this constitutes a breach of confidentiality.

The responsibility for the content and integrity of the review rests entirely with the reviewer and cannot be delegated to artificial intelligence.

The peer-reviewing process is a crucial stage that must be conducted confidentially and within the framework of academic responsibility. It is strictly forbidden for reviewers to use generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools at any stage of the review process. These tools cannot be used to generate reviewer reports and/or justify decisions. In accordance with academic publishing principles, reviewers may not upload or share documents containing unpublished original research results with any system. The review process must rely on the knowledge, experience, and critical judgment of expert reviewers in the field, and these tools cannot replace this expert opinion. In an environment where the reliability of such tools is questionable, reports produced using them will lead to superficiality, bias, and problems with fairness and originality. Furthermore, the responsibility for the review process, which must be undertaken by the reviewer, cannot be delegated to artificial intelligence. For other issues related to international standards that reviewers must adhere to, please review our policy on peer review and the COPE standards.