Code of Ethics of AI Law Journal 

 Version 1.0

 1. Preface

 1.1. AI Law - International Review of Artificial Intelligence Law, conceived according to the scientific parameters of the National Agency for the Evaluation of the University and Research System (ANVUR), aims to be an interdisciplinary academic forum for the critical study of the legal implications arising from the use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems.

 1.2. This document constitutes the Code of Ethics (CE) of the AI ​​Law journal and must be observed by all those who interact with it in various capacities.

1.2.1. The CE is inspired by the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 1.2.2. The CE aims to ensure compliance with ethical-legal rules of correctness, transparency and responsibility.

 1.2.3. The CE is based on the acceptance and balancing of the principle of admissibility of AI technologies in scientific production and the principle of self-responsibility of the authors who use them.

 2. Journal bodies. Functions and duties

 2.1. AI Law is composed of a Board of Directors and an Editorial Committee.

 2.2. The Board of Directors establishes the journal's editorial policy, commissions and/or receives proposals for the publication of articles and takes the decision on their publication also following a refereeing process consisting of a double blind peer review.

 2.3. The decisions of the Board of Directors are taken exclusively on the basis of consistency with the purposes of the journal and compliance with criteria of scientific relevance (in particular: originality, methodological rigor and innovation) commensurate with the nature (structure and function) of the articles.

 2.3.1. “Originality” means the level at which the product introduces a new way of thinking and/or interpreting in relation to the scientific object of the research and is distinct and innovative compared to previous approaches on the same object.

 2.3.2. “Methodological rigor” means the level at which the product clearly presents the objectives of the research and the state of the art in the literature, adopts a methodology appropriate to the object of the research and demonstrates that the objectives have been achieved.

 2.3.3. “Innovativeness” means the level at which the product exerts, or is likely to exert, an influence on the national and international scientific community.

 2.4. The decisions of the Board of Directors are taken avoiding discrimination of any kind. Accordingly, the Board of Directors refrains from any evaluation relating to the age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion or ideology of the authors of the articles as well as from any ethnic-racial profiling that may concern them and does not attribute any kind of importance to the methodological approach followed, affiliation with university institutions, research bodies or groups, carrying out work or professional activities, membership in academic schools or membership in political parties or trade unions.

 2.5. The Editorial Committee ensures that the articles comply with the editorial criteria of the journal and to this end indicates any changes or additions to the authors of the articles. It also carries out preliminary investigations into the possible existence of hypotheses of plagiarism or unauthorized use of artificial intelligence, also using technological tools, including artificial intelligence itself.

 2.6. The Board of Directors and the Editorial Committee are committed to avoiding conflicts of interest in the selection and review of contributions, to guarantee the confidentiality of information relating to the personal data of the authors of the articles, to promote and implement double-blind peer review practices to ensure impartial evaluations.

 3. Duties of Reviewers

 3.1. Reviewers play a fundamental role in guaranteeing the quality of scientific production through the review task entrusted to them (double-blind peer review).

 3.2. Reviewers are required to provide objective, constructive and timely evaluations, respect the confidentiality of the information received during the review process and declare any conflicts of interest.

 3.3. Reviewers may use artificial intelligence tools for the sole purpose of formally improving the text, to verify the correctness of the reference to sources and data, the congruence of bibliographical and jurisprudential references or the logical-argumentative coherence, but the evaluation requested from them must be the result of a strictly personal judgment, in no case delegable to automated systems for every substantial aspect relating to the determination of the scientific value of the articles, especially with regard to originality, methodological rigor and innovation.

3.4. Reviewers must provide their evaluation, signed analogically or digitally, on a special form prepared by the Board of Directors, which will ensure its conservation, also in order to allow checks or controls in the context of inspection activities carried out by ANVUR or other competent Authorities.

 4. Duties of Authors

 4.1. Authors must ensure that their contributions are original and scientifically rigorous.

4.2. In particular, all data, citations and sources must be carefully verified.

4.3. Any form of plagiarism is prohibited.

4.4. Authors must declare any conflicts of interest and sources of funding.

4.5. AI Law recognizes the growing role of AI technologies in supporting research and scientific writing and allows their use, with the limits indicated below, in the drafting of contributions published in the journal. AI can be used as a support tool but the methodological approach and critical synthesis must actually derive from human contribution.

4.6. Authors must explicitly declare the use of AI tools when they have been entrusted, even in part, with the identification or selection of data or sources that the article takes into account, the identification or selection of bibliographical or jurisprudential references or the methodological approach, the construction of reasoning or the logical-argumentative development of the passages that make up the article. In this case, authors must specify the nature and extent of the support received and this declaration will be made publicly accessible, in the methodological section of the article or in a dedicated note, according to the methods established by the Board of Directors.

4.7. Authors must be aware of the potential biases inherent in AI systems and adopt measures to mitigate them, in particular in data analysis and regulatory interpretations. In particular, authors are required to verify the accuracy and reliability of any output produced by AI, including bibliographical and jurisprudential references.

4.8. However, the exclusive use of AI for the automatic generation of entire articles without substantial human input is not permitted. The possible exception to this rule depends solely on a decision of the Board of Directors, which also reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to establish the methods with which to give notice of it within the article as well as to acknowledge the authorship by indicating him as such or to publish the writing anonymously and at the same time reporting that it is the result of an automatic generation carried out by the user, named by name, of a specific artificial intelligence system, in which case the name of the tool, the version and configuration used, the prompt and output of the AI, where relevant, and the methods adopted for the verification and control of the contents generated by the AI ​​must be disclosed.

4.9. In any case, the use of AI does not exempt the authors or generators of automated content from any form of liability arising from any illegality due to the publication of the writing.

4.10. The authors cannot request the publication of contributions protected by copyright and assume all liability in the event of violation of rights belonging to anyone.

4.11. The articles published on AI Law can also be freely published in other works belonging to the following typologies: a) studies or writings in honor or in memory; b) proceedings of conferences or seminars; c) collections of writings by the same author. In all the cases mentioned, however, it must be expressly indicated that the contribution has already been published or is in the process of being published on AI Law. For typologies other than those mentioned, the possibility of new publication in another editorial office is conditional on a written authorization from the Board of Directors of AI Law.

 5. Management of misconduct

 In the event of reports of misconduct (plagiarism, data manipulation, unauthorized use of AI tools, undeclared conflicts of interest, etc.), the Board of Directors will initiate an investigation in accordance with COPE guidelines. Corrective actions may include retraction, correction, publication of clarification notes, or any other measure the Board of Directors deems appropriate.

6. Review and update of the Code of Ethics

 This Code of Ethics will be periodically reviewed to respond to evolving academic practices and emerging technologies, with particular attention to developments in the field of artificial intelligence.