The Journal of Digital Sharia and Contemporary Legal Thought acknowledges the transformative role of artificial intelligence (AI) in contemporary scholarly communication, particularly in research addressing Islamic law, legal reasoning, normative ethics, and digitally mediated socio-legal environments. AI technologies—ranging from tools that enhance linguistic clarity to systems that assist in data analysis and content preparation—may offer practical benefits for authors. Nevertheless, their use must be carefully regulated to preserve academic integrity, originality, transparency, and legal–ethical accountability.

This policy sets forth the journal’s standards for the ethical and responsible use of AI tools in manuscript preparation. It aims to provide clear guidance, minimize ambiguity, and align with the Core Practices and evolving recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as emerging international discussions on AI governance in legal and socio-religious research.

Definition of AI Tools

For the purposes of this policy, AI tools refer to software applications, platforms, or systems that employ artificial intelligence methodologies—such as machine learning (ML), natural language processing (NLP), or deep learning—to generate, edit, translate, summarize, analyze, or visualize textual, numerical, visual, or audio content.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Generative language models (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and comparable large language models)

• Writing and language enhancement tools (e.g., Grammarly, DeepL Write, QuillBot)

• AI-assisted applications for data processing, coding, and visualization

• AI systems used to generate figures, graphs, or statistical representations

• AI-supported tools for literature searching, citation management, or document structuring.

Acceptable Use of AI Tools

Authors may employ AI tools for limited, transparent, and auxiliary purposes, provided that such use does not compromise scholarly originality or legal–ethical responsibility.

Permissible Uses

Acceptable uses of AI tools include:

• Refinement of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and syntax

• Enhancement of clarity, coherence, tone, and linguistic precision

• Assistance in formatting citations and references

• Conducting preliminary or exploratory literature searches

• Supporting—though not replacing—statistical or qualitative data analysis

• Generating visual aids or illustrations, provided they are ethically sourced, critically evaluated, and properly contextualized.

Prohibited Uses

AI tools must not be used to:

• Generate entire manuscripts or substantial portions of original scholarly content

• Replace human legal reasoning, normative analysis, or interpretive judgment in studies of Islamic law and contemporary legal thought

• Fabricate, manipulate, or falsify data, findings, legal cases, or visual materials

• Produce translations without thorough human verification

• Summarize or paraphrase existing scholarship in ways that risk plagiarism or misrepresentation

• Create content that infringes copyright, violates data protection laws, or misuses third-party materials

Author Responsibilities

Authors retain full responsibility for all content submitted to the journal, including any material developed with AI assistance. Authors must:

• Ensure the accuracy, originality, and reliability of all AI-supported content

• Identify and correct factual errors, hallucinations, bias, or normative distortions generated by AI systems

• Properly cite all external sources, including materials suggested by AI tools

• Accept full accountability for ethical, legal, or scholarly concerns arising from AI use

• Critically review, revise, and validate all AI-assisted outputs in accordance with disciplinary standards in Islamic and legal studies.

Authorship and AI

AI tools cannot qualify for authorship or co-authorship under any circumstances. Authorship is reserved exclusively for human contributors who make substantial intellectual contributions and who can assume full scholarly and legal responsibility for the work. Listing AI tools as authors, contributors, or co-authors—including in author notes or contribution statements—is strictly prohibited and may result in manuscript rejection or post-publication retraction.

Disclosure Requirements

Authors must transparently disclose any use of AI tools beyond basic language editing. Disclosures must include:

• The name, version, and developer of the AI tool

• A concise description of its purpose and scope of use

• A statement affirming full authorial responsibility for the manuscript’s content.

Placement of AI Disclosures

Depending on the nature of AI usage, disclosures should be included in one or more of the following sections:

• Methods Section: If AI tools were used for data analysis, coding, legal text processing, or figure generation

• Acknowledgments Section: If AI tools assisted with language refinement, translation, or formatting

• Dedicated Statement: Authors may include a stand-alone declaration, for example:

“During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [AI tool name, version, developer] for [specific purpose]. All AI-assisted content was critically reviewed and verified by the authors to ensure accuracy, legal coherence, and scholarly integrity. The authors assume full responsibility for the content of this manuscript.”

Editorial and Peer Review Oversight

Editors and reviewers will assess disclosures of AI usage as part of the ethical, methodological, and substantive review process. If undisclosed, inappropriate, or excessive AI use is suspected, the editorial office may:

• Request clarification, documentation, or revisions

• Reject the manuscript

• Initiate a formal ethical inquiry or notify the author’s affiliated institution, where appropriate

The journal does not rely solely on automated detection systems to identify AI-generated content; all evaluations involve human judgment and direct communication with authors.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

Failure to comply with this policy may result in:

• Immediate rejection of the manuscript

• Retraction of a published article

• Notification of the author’s affiliated institution

• Restrictions on future submissions in cases of serious or repeated violations

Appeals and Dispute Resolution

Authors may appeal editorial decisions related to AI usage by submitting a formal, evidence-based appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals will be reviewed by the journal’s internal ethics committee and, where necessary, referred to an independent COPE advisor.

Use of AI by the Editorial Team

The Journal of Digital Sharia and Contemporary Legal Thought does not employ AI tools to make autonomous editorial or peer-review decisions. Any future use of AI to assist editorial workflows will be disclosed transparently and will remain subject to full human oversight and final editorial authority.

Policy Updates and Author Guidance

This policy will be reviewed and updated periodically in response to technological developments, emerging ethical challenges, and evolving best practices in scholarly publishing. Authors are encouraged to consult the most recent version prior to submission and to contact the editorial office for clarification when needed.

The journal supports the responsible integration of technological innovation while maintaining its commitment to rigorous scholarship, legal accountability, and ethical publication practices.

Ethical Framework and References

This policy is informed by guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and related international frameworks, including:

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Core Practices.

• COPE. Discussion Document on Artificial Intelligence in Editorial Decision-Making (2021).

• COPE. Position Statement on Authorship and AI Tools (2023).

• COPE. Retraction Guidelines (Version 3, 2025).

• UNESCO. Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (2021).

• European Commission. Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI (2019).