Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Focus:

This scientific journal contains the results of thoughts, ideas, and concepts from scientific research oriented towards the fields of chemistry education, chemical science, and Natural Sciences (IPA).

Scope:

  • Chemical Science
  • Learning Media
  • Learning Modules
  • Innovative Learning Models
  • Learning Curriculum

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

CHEDS implements a Peer Reviewed policy. Submitted manuscripts will be checked for originality and suitability by the editor before being distributed to one or two competent reviewers in the field. Correspondence between the author and editor is conducted via email from the submission stage, revision, to the publication of the article. The article review process takes a maximum of 4 weeks from submission.

 

Publication Frequency

CHEDS: Journal of Chemistry Education and Science is published in June and December each year (1 volume and 2 issues per year).

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Publication Fee (Article Publication Charge)

Article Submission

IDR 0


Article Publication

IDR 350.000

 

Publication Ethic and Malpractic Statement

his following statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor, the reviewer, and the publisher (Universitas Medan Area).

Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Hasil gambar untuk committee on publication ethics logo

Publication decisions
The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.
The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play
An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

 

Review Guidlines

Review Process of Manuscript: Initial Review

  1. Read the abstract to be sure that you have the expertise to review the article. Don’t be afraid to say no to reviewing an article if there is the good reason.
  2. Read information provided by the journal for reviewers so you will know: a) The type of manuscript (e.g., a review article, technical note, original research) and the journal’s expectations/parameters for that type of manuscript.; b) Other journal requirements that the manuscript must meet (e.g., length, citation style).
  3. Know the journal’s scope and mission to make sure that the topic of the paper fits in the scope.
  4. Ready? Read through entire manuscript initially to see if the paper is worth publishing- only make a few notes about major problems if such exist: a) Is the question of interest sound and significant?; b) Was the design and/or method used adequately or fatally flawed? (for original research papers); c) Were the results substantial enough to consider publishable (or were only two or so variables presented or resulted so flawed as to render the paper unpublishable)?
  5. What is your initial impression? If the paper is: a) Acceptable with only minor comments/questions: solid, interesting, and new; sound methodology used; results were well presented; discussion well formulated with Interpretations based on sound science reasoning, etc., with only minor comments/questions, move directly to writing up review; b) Fatally flawed so you will have to reject it: move directly to writing up review; c) A mixture somewhere in the range of “revise and resubmit” to “accepted with major changes” or you’re unsure if it should be rejected yet or not: It may be a worthy paper, but there are major concerns that would need to be addressed.

 Full Review Process of Manuscript

  1. Writing: Is the manuscript easy to follow, that is, has a logical progression and evident organisation?
  2. Is the manuscript concise and understandable? Any parts that should be reduced,
  3. Eliminated/expanded/added?
  4. Note if there are major problems with mechanics: grammar, punctuation, spelling. (If there are just a few places that aren’t worded well or correctly, make a note to tell the author the specific places. If there are consistent problems throughout, only select an example or two if need be- don’t try and edit the whole thing).
  5. Abbreviations: Used judiciously and are composed such that reader won’t have trouble remembering what an abbreviation represents.
  6. Follows style, format and other rules of the journal.
  7. Citations are provided when providing evidence-based information from outside sources.

 

Plagiarism and Retraction Policy

CHEDS’s Editorial Board recognizes that plagiarism is not acceptable and therefore establishes the following policy stating specific actions (penalties) upon identification of plagiarism/similarities in articles submitted for publication in CHEDS. CHEDS will use Turnitin's originality checking software as the tool for detecting similarities of texts in article manuscripts and the final version of articles ready for publication. A maximum of 25% of similarities is allowed for the submitted papers. Should we find more than 25% of the similarity index, the article will be returned to the author for correction and resubmission.

Definition:

Plagiarism involves the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."

Policy:

Papers must be original, unpublished, and not pending publication elsewhere. Any material taken verbatim from another source needs to be clearly identified as different from the present original text by (1) indentation, (2) use of quotation marks, and (3) identification of the source.

Any text of an amount exceeding fair use standards (herein defined as more than two or three sentences or the equivalent thereof) or any graphic material reproduced from another source requires permission from the copyright holder and, if feasible, the original author(s) and requires identification of the source, e.g., previous publication.

When plagiarism is identified, the Chief Editor is responsible for the review of this paper and will agree on measures according to the extent of plagiarism detected in the paper in agreement with the following guidelines:

Level of Plagiarism

Minor: A short section of another article is plagiarized without any significant data or idea taken from the other paper.

Action: A warning is given to the authors and a request to change the text and properly cite the original article is made.

Intermediate: A significant portion of a paper is plagiarized without proper citation to the original paper.

Action: The submitted article is rejected, and the authors are forbidden to submit further articles for one year.

Severe: A significant portion of a paper is plagiarized that involves reproducing original results or ideas presented in another publication.

Action: The paper is rejected, and the authors are forbidden to submit further articles for five years.

It is understood that all authors are responsible for the content of their submitted paper as they all read and understand CHEDS's Copyright and Licensing Terms. If a penalty is imposed for plagiarism, all authors will be subject to the same penalty.

If the second case of plagiarism by the same author(s) is identified, a decision on the measures to be enforced will be made by the Editorial board (Chief Editor, and Editorial members) with the Chair of the Chief Editor. The author(s) might be forbidden to submit further articles forever.

This policy applies also to material reproduced from another publication by the same author(s). If an author uses text or figures that have previously been published, the corresponding paragraphs or figures should be identified, and the previous publication referenced. It is understood that in the case of a review paper or a paper of a tutorial nature much of the material was previously published.

The author should identify the source of the previously published material and obtain permission from the original author and the publisher. If an author submits a manuscript to CHEDS with significant overlap with a manuscript submitted to another journal simultaneously, and this overlap is discovered during the review process or after the publications of both papers, the editor of the other journal is notified, and the case is treated as a severe plagiarism case. Significant overlap means the use of identical or almost identical figures and identical or slightly modified text for one-half or more of the paper. For self-plagiarism of less than one-half of the paper but more than one-tenth of the paper, the case shall be treated as intermediate plagiarism. If self-plagiarism is confined to the methods section, the case shall be considered minor plagiarism.

If an author uses some of his previously published material to clarify the presentation of new results, the previously published material shall be identified and the difference to the present publication shall be mentioned. Permission to republish must be obtained from the copyright holder. In the case of a manuscript that was originally published in conference proceedings and then is submitted for publication in CHEDS either in identical or in expanded form, the authors must identify the name of the conference proceedings and the date of the publication and obtain permission to republish from the copyright holder. The editor may decide not to accept this paper for publication.

However, an author shall be permitted to use material from an unpublished presentation, including visual displays, in a subsequent journal publication. In the case of a publication being submitted, that was originally published in another language, the title, date, and journal of the original publication must be identified by the authors, and the copyright must be obtained. The editor may accept such a translated publication to bring it to the attention of a wider audience. The editor may select a specific paper that had been published (e.g., a “historic” paper) for republication to provide a better perspective of a series of papers published in one issue of CHEDS. This republication shall be clearly identified as such and the date and journal of the original publication shall be given, and the permission of the author(s) and the publisher shall be obtained.

The CHEDS layout editor for the Journal is responsible for maintaining the list of authors subjected to penalties and will check that no authors of a submitted paper are on this list. If a banned author is identified, the layout editor will inform the Chief Editor who will take appropriate measures. This policy will be posted on the website with the instructions for submitting a manuscript, and a copy will be sent to the authors with the confirmation email upon initial receipt of their original manuscript.

Retraction and/or Corrections

Authors are discouraged from withdrawing submitted manuscripts after it is in the publication process (review, copyedit, layout, etc.,). During that time, CHEDS had spent valuable resources besides time spent in the process. Should under any circumstances that the author(s) still request for a withdrawal, the author(s) must send an email to CHEDS's editor using the same email address used in correspondence.

CHEDS's editors shall consider retracting a publication if:

  • They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either because of a major error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error) or because of fabrication (e.g., of data) or falsification (e.g., image manipulation).
  • It constitutes plagiarism.
  • The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication).
  • It contains material or data without authorization for use.
  • Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (e.g., libel, privacy).
  • It reports unethical research.
  • It has been published solely based on a compromised or manipulated peer review process.
  • The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

Notices of retraction would:

  • Be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (i.e., in all online versions).
  • Clearly identify the retracted article (e.g., by including the title and authors in the retraction heading or citing the retracted article).
  • Be clearly identified as a retraction (i.e., distinct from other types of correction or comment).
  • Be published promptly to minimize the harmful effects.
  • Be freely available to all readers (i.e., not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers).
  • State who is retracting the article.
  • State the reason(s) for retraction.
  • Be objective, factual and avoid inflammatory language.

Retractions are not usually appropriate if:

  • The authorship is disputed but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings
  • The main findings of the work are still reliable, and corrections could sufficiently address errors or concerns.
  • An editor has inconclusive evidence to support retraction or is awaiting additional information such as from an institutional investigation.
  • Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication, but in the editor’s view, these are not likely to have influenced interpretations or recommendations or the conclusions of the article.

CHEDS's editors shall consider issuing an expression of concern if:

  • they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors.
  • there is evidence that the findings are unreliable, but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case.
  • they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive.
  • an investigation is underway, but a judgment will not be available for a considerable time.

CHEDS's editors shall consider issuing a correction if:

  • a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error).
  • the author/contributor list is incorrect (i.e., a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).

The mechanism follows the guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

 

Repository Policy

CHEDS is following PKP PN preservation services. The pre-print, post-print, and publisher's version/PDF can be archived under the following conditions. We also entrust our preservation and repository services to the National Library of the Republic of Indonesia through the OneSearch Repository Service.

All CHEDS publication version articles (PDF) have been digitally archived by the repository service. For more information, please also read our Copyright Notice, Licensing Terms, and the Archiving Policy.

As soon as CHEDS has published an article, the version of the article that has been submitted, accepted for publication, and the published version can be used for a variety of scholarly, even commercially purposes, and subject to full attribution under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Author(s) may deposit and use the document as follows:

  • on personal website.
  • on the company or institutional repository.
  • on the author's preferred subject repositories.
  • with individuals requesting personal use for teaching and training within the author’s institution, and as part of an author’s grant applications or theses/doctorate submissions.

 

 

Waiver Policy

We encourage our authors to publish their papers with us and don’t wish the cost of publication processing fees to be an insurmountable barrier. Authors don't need to pay for Article Publication if the quality of the article qualified with our standard and requirements, but CHEDS reserve the right to approve or reject any waiver application. The waiver's decision will be communicated to the corresponding author within one week after the request is received.

 

Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC)

The Initiative for Open Citations I4OC is a collaboration between scholarly publishers, researchers, and other interested parties to promote the unrestricted availability of scholarly citation data.

An initiative to open up citation data

The aim of this initiative is to promote the availability of data on citations that are structuredseparable, and open.

Structured means the data representing each publication and each citation instance are expressed in common, machine-readable formats, and that these data can be accessed programmatically. Separable means the citation instances can be accessed and analyzed without the need to access the source bibliographic products (such as journal articles and books) in which the citations are created. Open means the data are freely accessible and reusable.

Key benefits of achieving this aim include:

  • The establishment of a global public web of linked scholarly citation data to enhance the discoverability of published content, both subscription access and open access. This will particularly benefit individuals who are not members of academic institutions with subscriptions to commercial citation databases.
  • The ability to build new services over the open citation data, for the benefit of publishers, researchers, funding agencies, academic institutions and the general public, as well as enhancing existing services.
  • The creation of a public citation graph to explore connections between knowledge fields, and to follow the evolution of ideas and scholarly disciplines.

Reference distribution

Many publishers currently deposit reference lists from their journal articles to Crossref as part of their participation in Crossref’s Cited-by service. To open their references, along with the other bibliographic metadata that publishers send to Crossref, publishers need to turn on reference distribution for all of the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) prefixes they manage. This step allows references within the Crossref members’ articles to be distributed without restriction through all of Crossref's Metadata Delivery services, including the REST API and bulk metadata dumps, to any interested party. See below for additional information on reference distribution and on how to participate in Crossref’s Cited-by service.

Our Policy

Our journal is committed to the principles of open science and the promotion of transparency in scholarly research. As such, we support the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) and its efforts to make bibliographic and citation information in scholarly research articles more openly available.

To align with the goals and principles of I4OC, our journal will adopt the following practices:

  • We will make all bibliographic and citation information in our published articles available under a Creative Commons public domain dedication, to ensure that it can be freely used and reused by anyone.
  • We will use standardized formats and structures for bibliographic and citation information, such as the Citation Style Language (CSL) provided by CrossrefMendeley, and Zotero to facilitate its integration into other systems and tools.
  • We will provide access to bibliographic and citation information through APIs and other means, to enable its integration into other systems and tools.
  • We will encourage our authors to include complete and accurate bibliographic and citation information in their manuscripts, and to follow best practices for open citations as outlined by I4OC.

By adopting these practices, we hope to contribute to the transparency and accessibility of scholarly research, and to facilitate the use and reuse of citation information in new and innovative ways.

 

Licensing Terms

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

You are free to:

  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
  • for any purpose, even commercially.
  • The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:

  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Notices:

  • You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
  • No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.

 

Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in writing

This policy aims to provide greater transparency and guidance to authors, readers, reviewers, editors in relation to generative AI and AI-assisted technologies. Please note the policy only refers to the writing process, and not to the use of AI tools to analyze and draw insights from data as part of the research process.

Where authors use AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process, these technologies should only be used to improve readability and language of the work and not to replace key authoring tasks such as producing scientific, pedagogic, or medical insights, drawing scientific conclusions, or providing clinical recommendations. Applying the technology should be done with human oversight and control and all work should be reviewed and edited carefully, because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. The authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the contents of the work.

Authors should disclose in their manuscript the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies and a statement will appear in the published work. Declaring the use of these technologies supports transparency and trust between authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and contributors and facilitates compliance with the terms of use of the relevant tool or technology.

There are a number of artificial intelligence technologies with Large Language Model (LLM) that can give advice or create content that can be useful in your studies. ChatGPT by OpenAI and Gemini by Google are widely known and commonly used as generative AI and AI-assisted technologies for academic writing.

As generative artificial intelligence is an emerging technology, there is a lot of debate about how to incorporate it into existing referencing systems. It differs from many other academic sources, as there is no specific author and it is currently not able to be reproduced or recovered. Further, generative artificial intelligence can be used as more than just a source of information. You may use it to brainstorm ideas, or refine your writing. In cases like this, a citation would not be appropriate.

Authors should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite AI as an author. Authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans. Each (co-) author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved and authorship requires the ability to approve the final version of the work and agree to its submission. Authors are also responsible for ensuring that the work is original, that the stated authors qualify for authorship, and the work does not infringe third party rights, and should familiarize themselves with the journal's policies e.g. Author GuidelinePublication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, and Plagiarism and Retraction Policy before they submit.

Further to this, and in accordance with COPE’s position statement on AI tools, Large Language Models cannot be credited with authorship as they are incapable of conceptualising a research design without human direction and cannot be accountable for the integrity, originality, and validity of the published work.

The Editorial Team of CHEDS: Journal of Chemistry, Education, and Science recommend that a combination of the following should be used to acknowledge the use of generative artificial intelligence in academic work:

  • Written acknowledgment of the use of generative artificial intelligence and its extent.
  • Descriptions of how the information was generated (including the prompts used).

Generative AI usage key principles

  • Copywriting any part of an article using a generative AI tool/LLM would not be permissible, including the generation of the abstract or the literature review, for as per CHEDS's authorship criteria, the author(s) must be responsible for the work and accountable for its accuracy, integrity, and validity.
  • The generation or reporting of results using a generative AI tool/LLM is not permissible, for as per CHEDS's authorship criteria, the author(s) must be responsible for the creation and interpretation of their work and accountable for its accuracy, integrity, and validity.
  • The in-text reporting of statistics using a generative AI tool/LLM is not permissible due to concerns over the authenticity, integrity, and validity of the data produced, although the use of such common tools to aid in the analysis of the work would be permissible.
  • Copyediting an article using a generative AI tool/LLM in order to improve its language and readability would be permissible as this mirrors standard tools already employed to improve spelling and grammar, and uses existing author-created material, rather than generating wholly new content, while the author(s) remains responsible for the original work.
  • The submission and publication of images created by AI tools or large-scale generative models is not permitted.

Declaration of the generated material

At a minimum, you should include a declaration of use that explains what technologies, if any, you have used to generate material in working on your assessment.

When you have adapted material generated by artificial intelligence (e.g., if you were to completely rewrite and paraphrase your manuscript), or the material is being used to simply demonstrate the capability of generative AI, it is not appropriate to use in-text citations or references.

In these situations, you should add a declaration which:

  • Provides a written acknowledgment of the use of generative artificial intelligence.
  • Specifies which technology was used.
  • Includes explicit descriptions of how the information was generated.
  • Identifies the prompts used.
  • Explains how the output was used in your work.

A suggested format

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THE USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

I acknowledge the use of [insert AI system(s) and link] to [specific use of generative artificial intelligence]. The prompts used include [list of prompts]. The output from these prompts was used to [explanation of use].

For example:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THE USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

The authors acknowledge the use of Gemini Advanced (https://gemini.google.com/) to refine the academic language and accuracy of our work. On 6 July 2024, the authors submitted several paragraphs with the instruction to "Improve the academic tone and accuracy of language, including grammatical structures, punctuation and vocabulary" and "Please check the English grammar and make corrections where possible to improve the readability of the text." The output (here) was then modified further to better represent our tone and style of writing. This acknowledgement has been approved by the editorial team of this journal.

 

References:

COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics. COPE position statement. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author?ct=t(member-insight-ai-feb-2023)

Elsevier. The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in writing for Elsevier. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/the-use-of-generative-ai-and-ai-assisted-technologies-in-writing-for-elsevier 

Monash University. Acknowledging the use of generative artificial intelligence. Retrieved from https://www.monash.edu/student-academic-success/build-digital-capabilities/create-online/acknowledging-the-use-of-generative-artificial-intelligence#tabs__3254796-03