AI Usage & Research Transparency Policy

We remain mindful of the significant environmental footprint of these technologies, recognizing that the intensive energy and water consumption required to sustain AI models necessitates a commitment to their responsible and sustainable use.

As members of a scholarly community dedicated to the study of higher education, we value the "intellectual labor of thinking and making connections" as the bedrock of our field. While we recognize Generative AI as a transformative tool for productivity, it remains a supportive instrument. Within our community, AI is not a replacement for human scholarship, ethical judgment, or the unique voice of the researcher. 

1. Authorship and Accountability

   1. Human Authorship: Generative AI (LLMs like ChatGPT, Gemini, etc.) cannot be listed as an author or co-author. Authorship requires the capacity to take legal and ethical responsibility for the work—a standard only a human scholar can meet.

   2. Ultimate Responsibility: Authors are 100% accountable for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of their work. This includes the manual verification of all citations, facts, and data points provided by AI.

   3. Originality Requirement: Substantive text generated by an LLM is prohibited unless the LLM output is itself the object of the study (e.g., an analysis of AI-generated discourse), in which case it must be clearly identified.

3. Usage Guidelines

   1. Prohibited Use. To maintain the integrity of our scholarly community, the following are strictly prohibited:

      1. Fabrication: Generating synthetic data or falsifying claims/references.

      2. The "Mastermind" Role: Using AI to generate a thesis, primary theory, or analysis of qualitative themes in lieu of human researchers.

      3. Participant Substitution: Conducting "interviews" with AI tools in place of human participants.

      4. Reviewer Breach: Reviewers and editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts into AI tools. AI must not be used to generate peer-review reports or decision letters.

      5. Ghostwriting and Structural Delegation: Using AI to draft the entirety of a manuscript or to construct the core narrative and interpretive flow of the paper. The intellectual "heavy lifting,” including the framing of arguments and the synthesis of ideas, must remain the work of the human author.

      6. Automated Editing and Length Adjustment: Using AI tools to alter a manuscript's length, whether to condense text for word-count limits or to expand text to meet minimum requirements. The distillation of academic arguments, the generation of supporting prose, and the decision of what content to prioritize or omit are intellectual tasks that must be executed solely by human authors.

4. Transparency and Disclosure

   1. All conference proposals and journal submissions must include formal disclosure.

      1. The Submission Check-Box: Every submission portal will ask a question such as: “Did you use Generative AI in the production of this work?"

      2. Standardized Disclosure Statement: If "Yes" is selected, authors must provide a statement in the methods or acknowledgments detailing the tool name, version, and specific function (e.g., "ChatGPT-4o was used to organize author-generated notes").

      3. Citing AI: If AI-generated text is quoted (permissible only for research on AI), it must follow current APA Style: OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT (May 13 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com

5. Enforcement and Education

   1. Proposals, manuscripts, nor any other documents should not be run through AI checkers by reviewers, editors, or committee members. These documents contain proprietary author information and intellectual property; uploading or sharing this content without explicit permission constitutes a breach of confidentiality and can have serious legal or professional implications for the individual responsible.

   2. When allegations of prohibited use arise, the respective volunteer leader(s) and the Executive Director shall collaborate to determine a resolution, which may include an inquiry or an educational conversation with the member in question, or, if appropriate, a referral to the Ethics Committee as a formal complaint.

   3. In all instances, the ASHE Ethics Committee should be made aware of the incident. It is at the discretion of the leadership volunteer to file a formal case with the Ethics Committee for further investigation, depending on the severity of the incident.

6. Review
   1. This policy shall be reviewed by March 1 of each year by the Values and Policies Committee with proposed amendments brought to the Board of Directors.