Policy on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and generative technologies

The Revista Internacional & Comparada de Derechos Humanos maintains an unwavering commitment to scientific integrity, responsible authorship, and transparency in knowledge communication. In strict accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Publishing, of the Heredia Declaration, the journal recognizes AI exclusively as a technological tool whose employment must be explicit, traceable, and reproducible.

 

  1. Fundamental principle of authorship and human filter
  • Exclusion of co-authorship: In compliance with COPE guidelines and the Authorship Principle of the Heredia Declaration, generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, or equivalents) cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. Authorship is an exclusively human intellectual act that demands the ethical capacity to make decisions and assume legal and academic responsibility for the text, its data, and its conclusions—a condition that automated technologies do not possess.
  • Mandatory human filter: Any result, analysis, or text processed with AI assistance must be mandatorily filtered, contrasted, and critically verified by human beings, ensuring direct ethical oversight and scientific responsibility.

 

  1. Permitted uses

The use of AI-based tools is permitted solely as technical support during the preliminary phases of legal and socio-legal research, strictly limited to:

  • Linguistic and style improvement: Grammar and spelling correction, optimization of text fluency, and copyediting.
  • Technical translation: Support for translating the metadata (such as the abstract and keywords) or specific text sections into english or spanish.
  • Information retrieval assistance: Using algorithms to identify preliminary legal doctrine or judicial precedents, provided that all responses generated by the model are manually verified by the authors to prevent technical hallucination errors.

 

  1. Strictly prohibited uses and violations of integrity

The use of AI for the following purposes constitutes a severe violation of academic ethics and is grounds for the formal rejection of the manuscript:

  • Generation of substantive content: Automated drafting of legal arguments, development of hypotheses, doctrinal analysis, or the formulation of conclusions.
  • Fabrication of data and citations: Inventing bibliographical references, altering historical records, or simulating non-existent judicial precedents.

 

  1. Protection of confidential and sensitive data
  • In strict alignment with the Heredia Declaration, it is strictly prohibited to introduce personal, confidential, sensitive, or third-party data (such as unauthorized field testimonies, judicial records with protected data, or unpublished drafts) into the query forms or prompts of public or commercial AI models. This prevents the unauthorized feeding of external algorithms and safeguards the right to privacy and research anonymity.

 

  1. Obligation of transparency

Authors and reviewers are required to disclose the use of AI tools in the development or review of a manuscript. This disclosure must be made within the manuscript or review form itself, in a footnote that specifies:

  1. The AI model used, its version, and the date of use
  2. A detailed description of how the tool was used and the purpose of that interaction
  3. The outputs resulting from that interaction that were incorporated into the manuscript or review form.

Example:

“Note on the use of AI: The authors/reviewers declare that the tool [model, version, developer] was used on [date] for the sole purpose of [specify the task: e.g., grammatical and stylistic correction]. Furthermore, it is declared that the interactions did not involve protected or sensitive data, and the results were filtered by the authors/reviewers, who assume full responsibility for the originality of the text/evaluation provided.”

 

  1. Technical filter protocol

All contributions received by the journal are subjected to a similarity and AI detection review via the Turnitin program before starting any evaluation stage.

  • In the event that indications of undeclared AI-generated text are detected, the journal's first action will be to formally request the authors to provide the pertinent clarifications.
  • The definitive rejection of the manuscript for this reason will be reserved solely if the justifications presented fail to demonstrate human intellectual authorship, if no response is received within the granted period, or if the improper use of automated technologies is proven