Trust depends on what a platform refuses to exaggerate.
GAI’s ethics framework governs evaluation, records, verification, corrections and the way applicants should describe their status.
Core principles
Evidence
Decisions should rely on public, attributable and verifiable journal information rather than promotional assertions.
Independence
Payment covers work and cannot purchase a favourable evaluation result.
Precision
GAI status must be described within its actual scope, without implying ranking, accreditation or third-party inclusion.
Correction
Material record errors and status changes should be reviewed, corrected and communicated appropriately.
Journal policies expected for responsible evaluation
- Authorship and contributor responsibility
- Plagiarism, duplicate submission and publication
- Conflicts of interest for authors, reviewers and editors
- Human/animal research and informed consent where relevant
- Data integrity, image manipulation and research misconduct
- Corrections, retractions and expressions of concern
- Complaints and academic appeals
- Reviewer confidentiality and editorial independence
- Transparent author charges, waivers, rights and licences
Misuse of GAI status
Applicants and listed journals should not edit certificates, invent scores, imply government approval, describe GAI as another database or use its record to mislead authors. Suspected misuse may lead to review, correction, suspension or removal within the applicable framework.
Concerns and corrections
Send a concise report with the journal title, URL, relevant record, screenshots or supporting links to Use the contact form on this page. Reports should be factual and avoid publishing private or defamatory material unnecessarily.
Build visibility that authors can trust.
Responsible Visibility GuideApply ResponsiblyReport a Concern