Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy
Management Research Quarterly (MRQ) recognizes that generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and AI-assisted technologies can support scholarly work while also creating important challenges concerning research integrity, authorship, transparency, confidentiality, intellectual property, accuracy, and accountability.
This policy applies to authors, reviewers, editors, and other participants in the editorial and publication process. It should be read together with MRQ's Publication Ethics, Peer Review, and Responsible Research Assessment policies.
1. Principles
MRQ permits the responsible use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies where such use is transparent, compatible with research integrity, and subject to meaningful human oversight.
AI tools cannot assume responsibility for scholarly work. Human authors, reviewers, and editors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and appropriateness of all content and decisions with which they are associated.
Generative AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors because authorship requires accountability, approval of the final work, and responsibility for its integrity.
2. Use of Generative AI by Authors
Authors may use generative AI or AI-assisted technologies to support aspects of manuscript preparation, research, analysis, coding, visualization, or language improvement, provided that their use complies with applicable ethical, legal, confidentiality, and intellectual-property requirements.
Authors remain responsible for:
- verifying the accuracy of all AI-assisted content;
- checking all references, quotations, factual claims, calculations, analyses, and interpretations;
- ensuring that AI-generated or AI-assisted material does not constitute plagiarism or inappropriate reproduction of copyrighted material;
- identifying and addressing potential bias, fabrication, hallucination, or misrepresentation produced by AI systems;
- ensuring that the submitted manuscript represents the authors' own scholarly judgment and contribution.
Generative AI must not replace the authors' intellectual responsibility for developing the research question, evaluating evidence, interpreting findings, or drawing conclusions.
3. Disclosure of Generative AI Use
Substantive use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies must be disclosed transparently.
Where AI has been used in manuscript preparation, authors should include a statement before the References entitled:
Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies
The declaration should identify:
- the name of the tool or service;
- the purpose for which it was used;
- the aspect of the manuscript or research process in which it was used; and
- confirmation that the authors reviewed and verified the resulting content and accept full responsibility for the final work.
A suitable disclosure is:
“During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [NAME OF TOOL/SERVICE] for [PURPOSE]. The author(s) subsequently reviewed, verified, and edited the resulting material as appropriate and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.”
Routine use of tools limited to spelling, grammar, punctuation, reference management, or other basic technical assistance does not normally require disclosure unless the tool makes substantive changes to the content or structure of the manuscript.
Where generative AI forms part of the research methodology itself—for example, in data analysis, coding, classification, simulation, experimental treatment, or generation of research materials—its use must be described sufficiently in the Methods section to permit scholarly evaluation and, where appropriate, replication. Authors should identify the tool, relevant version or model, purpose of use, and other methodological information necessary to understand how the AI system contributed to the research.
4. AI-Generated or AI-Assisted Images, Figures, Data, and Code
The use of generative AI to create or materially alter figures, illustrations, images, datasets, analytical outputs, or computer code must be disclosed.
Where AI has contributed to a figure or illustration, the figure caption should identify the relevant AI tool and describe its role.
Authors must ensure that AI-generated or AI-assisted visual or analytical material:
- accurately represents the underlying research;
- does not fabricate or misleadingly modify evidence;
- respects copyright, privacy, confidentiality, and intellectual-property requirements; and
- can be appropriately explained and verified by the authors.
AI tools must not be used to fabricate, manipulate, or falsify research data or empirical evidence.
Where AI-generated data or synthetic data constitute part of the research design, this must be explicitly identified and methodologically justified.
5. Use of Generative AI by Reviewers
Submitted manuscripts and associated materials are confidential.
Reviewers must not upload a manuscript, substantial excerpts of a manuscript, supplementary files, confidential reviewer correspondence, or unpublished research data into public or third-party generative AI systems where doing so could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, or data protection.
Generative AI cannot replace a reviewer's independent scholarly evaluation or judgment.
Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, tone, and recommendations contained in their review reports.
Limited AI assistance may be used for purposes such as improving the language or organization of a review, provided that manuscript confidentiality is preserved and the reviewer retains full intellectual control over the assessment.
Substantive use of generative AI in preparing a review should be disclosed to the editor.
6. Use of Generative AI by Editors
Editors must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential documents and must not upload unpublished manuscripts or confidential submission materials into public generative AI systems.
Generative AI must not make, determine, or replace editorial judgments concerning manuscript quality, reviewer selection, acceptance, revision, or rejection.
Editorial decisions remain the responsibility of human editors.
AI-assisted tools may be used for limited administrative, language, metadata, or workflow-support purposes when confidentiality, data protection, and human oversight are maintained.
Where generative AI materially contributes to editorial assessment or communication, its use should be disclosed where appropriate.
7. Confidentiality and Data Protection
Authors, reviewers, and editors are responsible for ensuring that the use of AI tools does not disclose confidential, proprietary, personal, sensitive, or unpublished information to unauthorized third parties.
Before using an external AI system in connection with scholarly work, users should consider the system's terms of service, data-retention practices, model-training practices, confidentiality safeguards, and intellectual-property conditions.
Confidential manuscript material must not be entered into an AI system that retains, reuses, shares, or trains on submitted content without appropriate authorization and safeguards.
8. Accuracy, References, and Research Integrity
Generative AI systems may produce inaccurate, incomplete, biased, fabricated, or unverifiable information.
Authors are responsible for independently verifying every reference and factual claim included in their work. AI-generated references must not be included unless the authors have verified that the cited source exists and accurately supports the claim for which it is cited.
AI-generated text or output does not constitute an authoritative scholarly source merely because it was produced by an AI system. Where an AI system itself is the object of research, authors should document the tool and its use in a manner appropriate to the study.
Undisclosed or inappropriate AI use may be treated as a research-integrity or publication-ethics concern where it results in fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, misrepresentation of authorship, breach of confidentiality, or other violations of MRQ policies.
9. Human Responsibility
Responsibility for scholarly publishing remains human.
Authors remain accountable for their manuscripts; reviewers remain accountable for their reviews; and editors remain accountable for editorial decisions.
Generative AI may support scholarly work, but it cannot replace the critical judgment, ethical responsibility, transparency, and accountability expected from researchers and editors.
10. Evolution of this Policy
Generative AI technologies and associated standards are developing rapidly. MRQ will periodically review this policy in light of technological developments, research practices, publication-ethics guidance, and requirements of scholarly indexing and publishing organizations.
Last updated: September 2026
