The rapid proliferation of generative, artificial intelligence (AI) writing technologies presents a variety of problems and potentials for writing, rhetoric, and technical communication. While we recognize that writing and technology have always been deeply intertwined, we likewise stand behind the mounting interdisciplinary evidence that evinces how generative AI technologies present deeply troubling issues related to ethics, environmental sustainability, and social justice, to name just a few. Moreover, an uncritical, overreliance on generative AI for writing, researching, and publishing undercuts and attacks the very foundations of effective writing and disciplinary knowledge-making practices that we, as a journal, seek to uphold.

We acknowledge that each writer will find different utility and value in the many possible ways they might interact with or employ generative AI writing technologies. The use of generative AI in manuscript development is not, in and of itself, disqualifying for publication consideration; but its use must not supplant, substantially alter, or override the role of the writer/s. As a journal, we are also committed to the following:

• Contributing authors who employ generative AI at any point in their writing process must, at the time of initial submission, provide a statement that discloses—in great specificity—where and how generative AI technologies were used in the development of the manuscript.

• Reviewers should not employ generative AI in any capacity during the review process. If a reviewer suspects that generative AI has been used in unethical ways, the reviewer should convey their concerns to the editorial staff at Xchanges. Independently submitting a manuscript to an AI-detection software is highly unethical.

  • Our peer-review process is based on mentorship and support; the use of generative AI to conduct peer-review is antithetical to our mission at Xchanges.
• Xchanges editors will work with both authors and reviewers to continue to iteratively and responsibly execute ethically defensible enactments of writing technologies that reinforce the importance of the human writer in disciplinary knowledge-making.