AI policy

1. AI Policy: Background

This policy is under continual review. Last check June 2026. It draws heavily from a BMJ policy statement

For the purpose of this policy, the journal considers artificial intelligence (AI) to include large language models such as ChatGPT, and any other technologies which use machine learning, deep learning, natural-language processing, or similar or equivalent technologies from time to time.

The policy applies to submitting authors, as well as reviewers and editors.

Underpinning this policy, at the journal Gambling Harm: Research, Policy and Practice, (GHRPP) our goal is to publish content that reflects the genuine expertise, values, and voice of its contributors and community.

 

2. The policy

a. GHRPP will consider content where AI technologies are used, but will need to make a proportionate judgement on its effect, and the journal reserves the right to decline contributions on the basis of AI. Our core approach is one of transparency. Where AI technology has been used this must be clearly described. Editors will judge the suitability of the use outlined in the context of the work described and its ramifications. 

b. This policy applies to all authors and contributors submitting content for publication. It applies to all types of content, (ie including original research and theoretical pieces), and includes work that sits behind the article content itself (eg data processing used to support conclusions in a submission). It applies to all formats, including all text, audio, video and audio-visual material, abstracts, databases, tables, data, diagrams, photographs and other images or illustrative materials. 

3. Transparent reporting of AI technologies in content submitted 

a. We expect authors or others who are creating content to disclose and describe use of AI technologies in  any content along with any other work by the authors which underpins or is otherwise connected with the content submitted. To ensure transparent declaration of AI, authors should:

b. Include an acknowledgement of AI use in the ‘contributor’ section of written material. If the AI use was in the course of research, a fuller description should be included in the methods section.

c. Transparent declaration includes a description of:

      • What AI technology was used (the name of the technology)
      • Why this AI technology was used (the reason for its use)
      • How the AI technology was used (what the task of the technology was)
      • Consider including a summary of the input, output, and the way in which the AI output was reviewed on the part of the authors, providing this as supplementary files or additional information for the editor to review. The editor may ask for more information and/or for information to be added to the content for internal use and/or for publication. As part of the broader principle of research transparency we also encourage use of a suitable repository for the documentation of AI configurations, prompts, and outputs,

4. Journal Decision making

a. The journal will consider whether the way in which AI was used and declared is reasonable and consistent with its publication policies and practice. Content may be rejected or be subject to post-publication changes on the basis of inadequate declaration or through particular circumstances of its use. The journal operates under the auspices of the Grace-net network and will draw on the advice and opinions of the network where external, independent consultation is warranted (eg Gambling Research Ethics Advisory Team and Responsible Innovation Support networK).

5. Authorship

AI technologies are not accepted as an author(s) of any content submitted for publication. The journal only recognises humans as being capable of authorship since they must be accountable for the work.

6. Responsibility for content produced or influenced by AI technology

Authors, contributors, reviewers and editors are responsible for any content produced by AI technology in their work. This includes responsibility for accuracy, equity, suitable attribution of sources, and absence of plagiarism.

7. Additional comments on peer review

a. In addition to the preceding policy information, we remind reviewers that they should preserve the confidentiality of the peer review process by not putting unpublished manuscripts that they are reviewing (or information about them) into publicly available AI tools where the security of the confidential information cannot be guaranteed.

b. Where submitted work is published, our goal is subsequently to make available peer review information. This underscores the importance of transparent technology use by reviewers since they are potential content producers.