Scientific and Editorial Disclaimer

1. Nature of the service

EAIPAM assesses manuscripts against defined scholarly- integrity criteria.

Depending on the selected service, the assessment may consider:

• Reference integrity and bibliographic accuracy.
• Plagiarism and similarity screening, where included in the selected service.
• Citation-to-claim alignment.
• Scientific accuracy and consistency.
• Evidence depth and specificity.
• Corroborative patterns associated with AI-mediated drafting.

Plagiarism and similarity screening is a separate analysis. Similarity percentages are not included in the calculation of the EAIPAM integrity-risk score.

EAIPAM provides evidence and observations to support further editorial review. It does not make final publication, disciplinary, legal or institutional decisions.

2. Meaning of an EAIPAM score

An EAIPAM score represents the level of integrity risk identified through the configured assessment process.

A higher score may indicate that the manuscript contains more serious, numerous or consequential concerns requiring editorial examination.

The score does not represent:

• A percentage probability of misconduct.
• A probability that artificial intelligence was used.
• A determination that references were intentionally fabricated.
• A finding of plagiarism.
• A legal or disciplinary conclusion.
• A substitute for subject-matter review.

3. Reference-integrity findings

EAIPAM may identify references whose metadata cannot be matched, fully verified or reconciled with available scholarly records.

Verification may be affected by:

• Incomplete or inaccurate citation details.
• Differences between print and online publication records.
• Database coverage limitations.
• Indexing delays.
• Access restrictions.
• Variations in author names, titles, pagination or journal metadata.
• Older or non-standard publications.

A reference that cannot be automatically verified should not be described as fabricated without additional investigation.

4. Citation-to-claim findings

EAIPAM may identify instances in which a cited source appears not to support the associated manuscript claim, or supports it only partially.

These findings require review of:

• The complete cited publication.
• The manuscript wording.
• The scope and context of the claim.
• Whether several citations were intended to provide combined support.
• The distinction between direct evidence, inference, background information and expert opinion.

A citation mismatch may arise from imprecise writing, incorrect citation placement, an incomplete reference or genuine evidential overstatement. It does not by itself establish intentional deception.

5. Scientific-accuracy findings

EAIPAM may identify possible scientific errors, contradictions, terminology problems, conceptual inconsistencies or unsupported technical conclusions.

These observations depend on:

• The text available in the submitted manuscript.
• Available scientific literature and reference information.
• The configuration of the assessment process.
• The interpretation of relevant scientific concepts.

Scientific findings should be reviewed by a suitably qualified subject-matter expert before editorial action is taken.

EAIPAM does not guarantee that every technical error will be identified or that every flagged statement is incorrect.

6. Evidence-depth findings

EAIPAM may identify claims that appear insufficiently supported by quantitative evidence, comparative analysis, validation data, limitations or appropriate literature.

Evidence depth may vary according to:

• The purpose of the chapter or manuscript.
• The intended audience.
• The maturity of the research field.
• The availability of clinical, experimental or translational evidence.
• The distinction between a narrative overview and a systematic evidence synthesis.

An evidence-depth concern indicates that further support or qualification may be needed. It does not automatically mean that the associated statement is false.

7. AI-mediated writing patterns

EAIPAM may examine writing patterns that can occur in AI-assisted or insufficiently verified drafting.

Such patterns may include:

• Repetitive or formulaic scientific phrasing.
• Unsupported generalisations.
• Inconsistent technical terminology.
• Citation patterns that do not align with the associated claims.
• Scientifically plausible but inadequately substantiated statements.
• References with inaccurate or incomplete metadata.

These patterns are not unique to artificial intelligence. They may also result from poor drafting, translation, inadequate editing, incomplete research or human error.

AI-mediated writing observations are corroborative and must not be treated as conclusive proof that an author used artificial intelligence.

8. False positives and false negatives

No automated or human-assisted assessment system can eliminate all false positives and false negatives.

EAIPAM may:

• Flag a statement that is ultimately found to be accurate.
• Fail to identify an inaccurate or unsupported statement.
• Be unable to retrieve a valid reference.
• Interpret a claim differently from a specialist reviewer.
• Produce incomplete findings when manuscript text or source information is incomplete.

Findings should therefore be verified before they are relied upon for consequential decisions.

9. Database and source limitations

EAIPAM may rely on scholarly databases, DOI registries, bibliographic records, public sources and other information services.

These sources may contain:

• Incomplete metadata.
• Delayed indexing.
• Duplicate records.
• Incorrect author or publication information.
• Limited coverage of books, conference materials, regional journals or older publications.
• Access restrictions.

EAIPAM cannot guarantee the completeness or accuracy of every external record used during an assessment.

10. Manuscript and file limitations

Assessment quality may be affected by:

• Corrupt or unreadable files.
• Poor document formatting.
• Missing references.
• Incomplete chapters.
• Image-based text that cannot be reliably extracted.
• Unclear figure legends or table content.
• References supplied separately from the manuscript.
• Password-protected or restricted files.

Users are responsible for providing complete, readable and correctly formatted materials.

11. No substitute for peer review

EAIPAM does not replace:

• Independent peer review.
• Subject-matter expert review.
• Statistical review.
• Research-ethics review.
• Institutional misconduct investigation.
• Editorial due diligence.
• Legal advice or legal investigation.

Users should apply the level of additional review appropriate to the manuscript, subject area, intended decision and potential consequences.

12. No legal or disciplinary determination

EAIPAM reports do not constitute:

• A legal opinion.
• A finding of research misconduct.
• A disciplinary decision.
• A determination of copyright infringement.
• A determination of fraud.
• A final decision on publication, employment, funding or academic status.

Any investigation or consequential decision should follow the applicable institutional, contractual, editorial and legal procedures.

13. Editorial responsibility

Editors, publishers, institutions and other authorised users remain responsible for:

• Reviewing the underlying manuscript.
• Examining the cited sources.
• Obtaining specialist advice where needed.
• Giving authors an appropriate opportunity to respond.
• Applying relevant publishing and institutional policies.
• Considering the seriousness, context and materiality of each concern.
• Making the final decision.

14. Responsible communication of findings

Users should communicate EAIPAM findings accurately and with appropriate qualification.

Users must not:

• Present a risk score as proof of wrongdoing.
• Describe an unverifiable reference as fabricated without further examination.
• Describe AI-mediated patterns as proof of AI authorship.
• Remove material limitations from a report.
• Alter a report in a misleading manner.
• Use preliminary findings to make knowingly false or defamatory allegations.

15. Report versions and updates

Findings may be reviewed, confirmed, revised or excluded during authorised editorial review.

A later report version may differ from an earlier draft because:

• Additional evidence became available.
• A source was subsequently verified.
• A finding was clarified or corrected.
• An administrator excluded a false positive.
• The manuscript or assessment configuration changed.

Users should rely on the latest authorised version of a report.

16. No guaranteed outcome

EAIPAM does not guarantee that use of the platform will result in:

• Publication acceptance.
• Manuscript rejection.
• Correction of every scientific issue.
• Identification of every invalid reference.
• Agreement among all reviewers.
• A particular institutional or legal outcome.

17. Changes to assessments and methods

EAIPAM may improve or modify its assessment methods, data sources, criteria, scoring logic and report structure.

Results produced at different times or under different assessment versions may not be directly comparable.

Where available, reports may identify the assessment version used.

18. Limitation of reliance

Users should not rely exclusively on an EAIPAM report when making a decision that may materially affect an author, editor, researcher, publisher, institution or other person.

The level of independent verification should reflect the seriousness and potential consequences of the decision.

19. Questions and corrections

An authorised user may report a possible factual error, false positive, incomplete finding or report inconsistency.

A correction request should include:

• The submission or report number.
• The specific finding in question.
• The reason the finding may be inaccurate.
• Relevant source material or supporting evidence.

20. Changes to this disclaimer

EAIPAM may update this disclaimer to reflect changes in its assessment methods, services, scientific standards or legal obligations.

The effective date will be updated when a revised version is published.

21. Contact information