¡¡¡¡To safeguard the originality and humanistic value of academic research and prevent academic ethical risks arising from the misuse of technology, Chinese Health Quality Management journal has formulated the following norms regarding the application of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in scientific research writing:

1. Scope of Application of AI Tools
This journal has always regarded the independent critical thinking and creative contributions of researchers as the cornerstone of academia. AI tools (including generative AI, data analysis models, etc.) can only serve as auxiliary means and must not replace the core academic work of authors, which includes but is not limited to: formulating research questions and constructing theoretical frameworks, designing key experiments and innovating methodologies, conducting in-depth analyses of data results and refining academic viewpoints, and making value judgments and academic outlooks on research conclusions.

2. Restricted Usage Scenarios and Mandatory Disclosures
If AI tools are used in the following non-core aspects, authors must transparently disclose this information in the "Methods" section or in a separate paragraph at the end of the paper, while also submitting a contribution statement from both human authors and AI tools:
(1) Literature search and screening assistance: The final cited literature must be manually verified by the authors for authenticity and relevance.
(2) Basic data processing/visualization: The original data must be collected by the authors, and charts generated by AI must be labeled with the tool name and manually verified for data consistency.
(3) Language polishing: Direct submission of AI-generated text is prohibited, and modifications must retain the author£§s writing style and academic characteristics.
(4) Terminology explanation/background knowledge compilation: The generated content must be professionally verified and must not be used as original academic expression.

3. Absolutely Prohibited Behaviors
The following actions will be regarded as serious academic misconduct:
(1) Ghostwriting of core content: Using AI to generate the main content reflecting academic contributions and innovation, such as research methods, result analyses, and discussions.
(2) Concealing AI involvement: Failing to disclose details of tool usage as required (including tool name, version, functional scope, and usage aspects).
(3) Data fabrication: Using AI to alter, fabricate research data, or generate deceptive charts.
(4) AI authorship: Listing AI as a co-author or including references that list AI as an author.

4. Review and Accountability Mechanisms
For manuscripts suspected of improper or unreasonable use of AI tools, the editorial office will employ an AI traceability detection system combined with expert manual review. Once confirmed, depending on the severity of the violation, the editorial office will impose a graduated penalty on the non-compliant manuscript, ranging from "immediate rejection ¡ú three-year submission ban ¡ú notification of the author£§s institution." For published papers suspected of AI fraud, the editorial office will initiate a retraction and academic integrity record-keeping procedure.

5. Dynamic Governance Stance
This statement serves as a transitional academic ethical framework. The journal will continuously assess new risks brought about by the evolution of AI technology and, in accordance with technological developments and policy requirements, promptly revise the usage norms and publicize updated versions. The journal also reserves the right to interpret and retroactively apply clauses on matters not fully covered.