EDITORIAL

Editorial

History Education greetings,

Welcome to the July 2024 edition, volume 31, of Yesterday & Today. This edition appears against the backdrop of the ever-growing threats and opportunities posed by Artificial Intelligence (AI) to journals. In response, ASSAf and SciELO created Draft Guidelines for using Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools and Resources in Research Communication, which Yesterday & Today must adhere to. The purpose of these guidelines is to guide a journal like ours on the use of content generated by AI applications. This also means that we need to adjust our editorial policy accordingly. In this editorial, I will quote extensively from these guidelines (which is a continuous work in progress). The purpose is to alert all authors and reviewers about their responsibility regarding AI and large language model (LLM)-based tools.

ASSAf and SciELO Draft Guidelines for the Use Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools and Resources in Research Communication (still to be approved by the ASSAf Council)

Recommendation for authors

'Authors are solely responsible for ensuring the authenticity, validity, and integrity of the content in their manuscripts. Because it is not the work of the authors, any use of content generated by an AI application must be appropriately referenced. To do otherwise is the equivalent of plagiarism. Authors are called upon to avoid including misinformation generated by an AI application, as this could have adverse consequences for them personally, and impact the quality of future research and global knowledge.

Authors may use tools and resources that aid in the preparation, methodology, data analysis, writing support, review, and translation of their articles, book chapters, or books. AI applications offer many of these tools and resources, for example, grammatical and punctuation error detection tools are permissible as long as they follow attribution rules and maintain ethical and scientific integrity.

However, it is important to note that only humans can be considered authors, adhering to the following rules and practices:

• The sources of materials used in research and manuscript writing are referenced. Any use or content generated by an AI application should be mentioned in the abstract, methods section, or equivalent.

• All cited material should be properly attributed, including full citations, and the cited sources need to support the claims made by the AI application, as it is not uncommon for AI to generate references to non-existent works-that is, all citations need to be checked.

• Commonly used AI tools such as spelling and grammar checks do not need to be disclosed.

• The authors must assume public responsibility for their work as authors.

Concealing the use of AI tools is unethical and violates the principles of transparency and honesty in research.'

How to cite AI Content

'Content generated by AI tools should be cited and referenced as an unrecoverable source, similar to personal communication. This should follow the guidelines for citing this type of resource in the chosen reference style of the relevant journal. The journal needs to provide an example in its Guidelines to Authors section. Just as personal communications are cited to provide attribution and context, citing AI-generated content ensures transparency and accountability in scholarly discourse.

Any use or content generated by an AI application must be mentioned in the abstract and in the methods section or equivalent. The declaration of such use should include the name, version, and manufacturer of the tool used and the date on which it was accessed, for example:

(Chat GTP 3.5, Version 28 August 2023, Open AI, accessed 16 September 2023)

The 'prompt' or plain-language instruction entered in the tool should also be provided, either in the methods section of the manuscript or as supplementary material to the manuscript.

Where AI tools or LLMs have been used, for example, in the conception and design of a study, editing of non-data images, editing, or revising the writing, such contributions do not meet the criteria of authorship.

Where AI tools, specifically for spelling and grammar checks, similarity checking, and reference management are used, these do not need to be disclosed.'

This edition contains five academic articles:

• In her article, Pranitha Bharath unravelled second-order historical thinking concepts in South African history textbooks.

• This is followed by the contribution of Paul Maluleke and Sarah Godsell. Again, the focus was on textbooks. In their article, they ask probing questions about the absence of the LGBTIQA+ Community in School History Textbooks in Post-Apartheid South Africa.

• In his article, Paul Hendricks examines the transformative praxis of a dissident teachers' organisation, the Teachers' League of South Africa.

• In their contribution, Walter Sengai and NL Ntlama engage with teacher perceptions on the possibility of integrating History and Citizenship into the Lesotho Curriculum.

• The final contribution is from Francois Cleophas and focuses on Bernard Lazarus Emanuel Sigamoney: A Multi-Faceted School Teacher's Biography.

In addition, this edition includes the usual book review section. I want to thank Bafana Mpanza for the exceptional work he is doing in this regard. The teachers' voice section in this edition, edited by Denise Bentrovato, gives voice to international collaboration exercises between the Universities of Pretoria and Leipzig.

Happy reading, take care, and stay safe!

Johan Wassermann (Editor-in-Chief)