AI Policy for Authorship & Reviewing in Neural Injury and Functional Reconstruction

To safeguard academic originality, ensure ethical standards in publishing processes, and protect data security, this journal establishes the following regulations concerning the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools—including large language models (LLMs), generative AI, etc—during manuscript preparation by authors and expert peer review. All contributing authors and reviewers must adhere strictly to these guidelines.

I. Provisions for Authors

1. Research Articles:

(1) Use in data-related work is strictly prohibited: The application of AI tools is strictly forbidden in core research processes involving the collection, processing, analysis of research data, and the interpretation of results (including the generation of figures and tables). Researchers must personally complete these tasks and bear sole responsibility for the authenticity and accuracy of the data and results.

(2) Disclosure Required for Textual Revisions: If AI tools were used for non-substantive edits such as language polishing or grammatical corrections, authors must explicitly declare the following information in a dedicated paragraph within the “Conflict of Interest” section at the end of the main text: (1) The name(s) of the AI tool employed (e.g., DeepSeek, ChatGPT, etc.); (2) The specific section(s) modified (e.g., linguistic polishing of the Introduction/Discussion sections).

Authors remain fully responsible for all final content after AI-assisted revisions.

2. Review Articles:

Complete prohibition of AI Use: Given that review articles require in-depth critical thinking, synthesis, and interpretation of the literature in the field, this process must be carried out independently by the authors. This journal prohibits the use of AI tools at any stage of the conception, writing, or revision of review articles.

3. Authorship Criteria:

AI or any large language models do not meet the criteria for authorship, as they cannot assume responsibility for the scientific validity, integrity, and ethical aspects of the work. Listing AI as an author is strictly prohibited. All human authors must explicitly declare their contributions and responsibilities in statements affirming substantive involvement.

II. Provisions for Reviewers

1. Prohibition of AI in Peer Review:

Reviewers are strictly prohibited from inputting any portion of submitted manuscripts—including text, figures, tables, or data—into public AI platforms, nor may they utilize AI tools to inform review decisions.

2. Responsibility for Data Security and Ethical Compliance:

The peer review process involves confidential, unpublished original data and research findings requiring strict protection. Should AI-assisted review result in content leakage, data breaches, or trigger intellectual property disputes/data security incidents, the reviewer shall bear full responsibility for all ensuing consequences and ethical conflicts.

III. Oversight and Enforcement Measures

This journal has implemented advanced anti-AI content detection tools and conducts random screenings of both submissions and review activities.

(1) For Authors: If any violation of the above provisions (such as undeclared use of AI, use of AI in prohibited sections, etc.) is confirmed, the manuscript will be subject to immediate rejection, and their affiliated institution may be notified as deemed appropriate.

(2) For Reviewers: Any verified use of AI during peer review will result in immediate revocation of reviewer status and removal from the journal’s expert database.

This journal firmly believes that rigorous and responsible academic research represents the crystallization of human intellect. We encourage authors and reviewers to leverage technological tools as aids—yet never as substitutes for the core intellectual contributions and ethical judgment of human researchers.

Editorial Office of Neural Injury and Functional Reconstruction