Advances in Human Resource Management Research (AHRMR) is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal published by Yayasan Pendidikan Bukhari Dwi Muslim. AHRMR has particular interest in Asia-Pacific and emerging-economy contexts while welcoming high-quality international, comparative, cross-cultural, and globally relevant scholarship from all regions.
Vol. 4 No. 3 (2026)
Published: July 14, 2026 · Issue DOI
Bambang Septiawan, Zulkarnain Zulkarnain, Nik Haryanti
Pages 385-403 · DOI: 10.60079/ahrmr.v4i3.802
Semmy Wellem Taju, George Morris William Tangka, Ibrena Reghuella Chrisanti
Pages 404-422 · DOI: 10.60079/ahrmr.v4i3.1008
Sharon Kumaratih Dewi Wardoyo, Grace Fresania Kaparang
Pages 423-448 · DOI: 10.60079/ahrmr.v4i3.1027
Lia Nurhanifah, Sukaris Sukaris, Rahmat Agus Santoso
Pages 449-468 · DOI: 10.60079/ahrmr.v4i3.951
Dwi Sunu Kanto, Wachyu Hari Haji, Tipri Rose Kartika
Pages 469-488 · DOI: 10.60079/ahrmr.v4i3.859
Putu Gede Denny Herlambang, I Made Sudiksa, I Kadek Sara Mandiyasa
Pages 489-511 · DOI: 10.60079/ahrmr.v4i3.831
Rahmat Laan, Lusia Adinda Dua Nurak, Siti Nurhayati, Hanifah Djakaria
Pages 512-532 · DOI: 10.60079/ahrmr.v4i3.910
Anthonius S. Hutabarat, Dewi Tamara, Irawan R D Budianto, Yulianah Yulianah
Pages 533-550 · DOI: 10.60079/ahrmr.v4i3.981
Irawan R D Budianto, Dewi Listiorini, Anthonius S. Hutabarat, Yulianah Yulianah
Pages 551-571 · DOI: 10.60079/ahrmr.v4i3.982
Gema Merdeka Goeyardi, Arasy Alimudin, Yulianah Yulianah
Pages 572-588 · DOI: 10.60079/ahrmr.v4i3.1117
AHRMR covers human resource management, organizational behavior, management, business, governance, accounting, finance, economics, technology, health management, and the other fields detailed below. All recognized fields have equal standing.
Advances in Human Resource Management Research (AHRMR) publishes rigorous original research and scholarly literature reviews that advance theory, evidence, and practice across the recognized fields below.
All fields listed above are recognized as part of AHRMR's main scholarly scope and have equal standing in editorial assessment. A manuscript may establish relevance through a substantive contribution to any one recognized field. Combining several fields or introducing an additional HRM, employee, workforce, or workplace variable is not required.
AHRMR has particular interest in Asia-Pacific and emerging-economy contexts while welcoming local, national, international, comparative, and cross-cultural studies from all regions when the research question, evidence, and contribution have broader scholarly relevance.
The current harmonized AHRMR Aims & Scope framework applies prospectively from 1 September 2026. Valid manuscripts, editorial decisions, published articles, issue assignments, DOI records, and other historical scholarly records created under earlier journal policies remain part of the permanent journal record and are not retrospectively reclassified merely to conform to the current framework.
Submissions should identify a meaningful scholarly problem or knowledge gap, use an appropriate and defensible methodology, and support conclusions with credible research evidence or critical literature synthesis.
Scope relevance does not guarantee acceptance. Manuscripts may be declined if originality, scholarly contribution, methodological rigor, or research integrity is insufficient.
AHRMR accepts Research Papers and Literature Review Papers in academic English. Submit a blinded manuscript and a separate Title Page & Author Information Form through OJS.
Advances in Human Resource Management Research (AHRMR) accepts original, English-language scholarly manuscripts submitted through its official Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. Authors should confirm relevance to the journal's Aims & Scope before submission.
These are the only two submission categories; Conceptual Papers are not a separate category. Research designs, analytical techniques, datasets, and review approaches do not constitute additional manuscript types. Theoretical or conceptual contributions may be developed within either eligible type.
All fields expressly included in AHRMR's Aims & Scope have equal standing. An additional HRM, employee, workforce, or workplace variable is not required when the substantive subject already falls within a recognized field.
Research Paper abstract: Purpose; Research Methodology; Results; Research Limitations; Implications; Originality.
Literature Review Paper abstract: Purpose; Review Methodology; Findings; Research Limitations; Implications; Originality. Keep abstracts informative and concise; avoid unnecessary detailed statistical reporting.
Research Paper sections: Introduction; Literature Review; Research Methodology; Results; Discussion; Conclusion. Present a clear problem and contribution, appropriate scholarly grounding, transparent methods, credible analysis, a distinct interpretation of results, and evidence-supported conclusions.
Literature Review Paper sections: Introduction; Review Methodology; Review Findings / Literature Synthesis; Discussion; Conclusion. Explain how literature was identified, selected, evaluated, and synthesized, with sufficient transparency about the review process and its limitations.
Describe procedures actually performed. Claims of systematic searching, PRISMA use, bibliometric analysis, meta-analysis, scoping review, or another specific design must be supported by the reported methods and records. Bibliometric mapping or descriptive listing alone is insufficient without substantive scholarly synthesis and interpretation.
Tables and figures must be relevant, numbered, appropriately titled, and placed near their first substantive discussion. Figures should be clear and publication-ready, with approximately 300 DPI preferred where applicable. Ensure readable labels, consistent terminology, coherent paragraphs, and appropriate academic language; editing must not alter scientific meaning, evidence, data, or claims.
Every citation and reference must be genuine, traceable, and accurately represented. Provide DOI information where available and reconcile in-text citations with the reference list in both directions. Fabricated, fictitious, hallucinated, materially inaccurate, or unverifiable references are not permitted.
Master Manuscript Template ↗ · Title Page & Author Information Form ↗
ORCID is required for the corresponding author; other authors should provide an ORCID where available. Keep identifying declarations out of the blinded manuscript while providing sufficient non-identifying research-method and ethics information for reviewers.
The corresponding author must confirm, on behalf of all authors, that the work is original; is not simultaneously under consideration elsewhere; accurately attributes third-party work; has been approved for submission by all listed authors in the agreed authorship order; reports genuine scholarly contributions; and includes accurate ethics, consent, permission, funding, conflict-of-interest, data availability, and AI-use declarations as applicable.
Disclose any earlier public version, overlapping work, or relevant prior dissemination to the Editorial Office. Supporting documentation may be requested where necessary. The declaration is part of the separate Title Page; no third mandatory file is introduced at initial submission. Ethics approvals, consent statements, permissions, authorization numbers, funding details, and other declarations must never be invented or inferred where they do not exist.
AI systems cannot be authors or co-authors. Disclose substantive generative AI assistance beyond routine spelling, grammar, formatting, or straightforward language correction in the Title Page. Human authors remain accountable for originality, evidence, confidentiality, calculations, citations, references, and conclusions, and must independently verify AI-assisted outputs. Complete authorship and AI policies appear on the Publication Ethics page.
Eligible manuscripts proceed from editorial screening to double-anonymous peer review, normally involving at least two independent reviewers. Reviewer comments and academic editorial decisions are communicated through OJS. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; final scientific-editorial responsibility remains with the responsible academic editor and, where applicable, the Editor-in-Chief.
When revisions are requested, submit (1) the revised blinded manuscript and (2) a point-by-point response to every substantive editorial and reviewer comment through the designated OJS revision workflow. Identify the amendment and relevant section or page; where a suggestion is not adopted, provide a respectful, evidence-based explanation.
Submit revisions within the timeframe stated in the editorial decision. A revision invitation does not guarantee acceptance. Final scientific-editorial decisions remain independent of APC payment, ability to pay, or waiver eligibility; no APC is payable before final editorial acceptance.
Peer Review Procedures → · Publication Ethics, Plagiarism and AI Policy → · Official APC Policy →
Formal submissions must use the AHRMR OJS system, not private email or messaging channels. Before submission, confirm scope eligibility, select the correct manuscript type, use the current template, prepare both required files, complete applicable declarations, verify citations and references, and ensure uploaded files agree with the submission metadata.
Review the journal's Open Access, licensing, privacy, publication-frequency, and APC policies before submitting. AHRMR provides immediate Open Access; authors retain copyright, and published articles use CC BY 4.0. The APC is IDR 5,000,000 per accepted manuscript when at least one author has an institutional affiliation in Indonesia. A full waiver / IDR 0 applies when all authors are institutionally affiliated exclusively outside Indonesia. Eligibility follows institutional affiliation, not nationality, citizenship, or residence; administration begins only after final acceptance.
Make a Submission → · Register → · Login → · Publication Frequency → · Privacy Statement →
AHRMR supports responsible and transparent AI-assisted scholarship while safeguarding research integrity, confidentiality, and human accountability. The policy applies to authors, editors, reviewers, and editorial personnel.
Publication Ethics & Research Integrity
Policy on the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence and AI-Assisted Technologies
Advances in Human Resource Management Research (AHRMR)
Publisher: Yayasan Pendidikan Bukhari Dwi Muslim
Advances in Human Resource Management Research (AHRMR) recognizes the growing role of artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies in scholarly communication, research methods, data analysis, and manuscript preparation. Such technologies may support legitimate academic activities but must be used responsibly, transparently, and consistently with research integrity and publication ethics.
This policy establishes the responsibilities of authors, editors, peer reviewers, and editorial personnel. AI-assisted technologies must not replace genuine human intellectual contributions, independent scholarly judgment, ethical research practices, confidentiality, or accountability for published findings.
This policy applies to manuscript submissions, revisions, editorial screening, peer review, publication preparation, and post-publication activities conducted by AHRMR.
The policy applies equally to all scholarly fields expressly recognized within the journal's current Aims & Scope. AI-related requirements do not create an additional subject-area restriction or require manuscripts to include an HRM or workforce variable when their actual subject is already within the journal's scope.
AI-assisted technologies include generative language models, AI-based writing and coding assistants, automated content-generation tools, and technologies capable of generating or materially transforming research-related content. Routine conventional software functions are distinguished from substantive generative AI assistance.
AI systems cannot qualify as authors or co-authors because they cannot accept responsibility for scholarly work, approve a final manuscript, disclose conflicts of interest, or respond to research-integrity concerns.
All authors must make genuine intellectual contributions, approve the manuscript, and accept responsibility for its accuracy, originality, theoretical grounding, research methodology, interpretation, references, and conclusions.
The use of AI assistance does not diminish the responsibility of human authors or replace the journal's authorship and CRediT contributorship requirements.
Authors may use AI-assisted technologies for the following purposes, provided that appropriate verification and disclosure requirements are satisfied:
Authors must not use AI to:
Authors must verify all factual claims, theoretical interpretations, statistical results, quotations, citations, and references introduced or modified through AI assistance.
AI-generated bibliographic suggestions must not be treated as confirmed scholarly sources. Authors must verify original publications, source relevance, author details, publication metadata, and DOI identifiers before citing them.
All citations and references must follow the journal's APA 7th edition requirements. The correspondence between in-text citations and the reference list must be checked in both directions.
AI-assisted analytical outputs must be validated against actual datasets, appropriate research procedures, and defensible methodological standards.
The requirements of this policy apply to both manuscript types accepted by AHRMR: Research Paper and Literature Review Paper.
Research designs, analytical techniques, bibliometric procedures, and AI-supported methods do not constitute additional manuscript types.
For Literature Review Papers, authors must independently verify the identification, selection, assessment, and synthesis of relevant publications. AI-generated summaries must not substitute for critical engagement with original scholarly sources.
Where AI forms part of a legitimate research or review methodology, authors must document the system's methodological role, relevant configuration, validation procedures, limitations, and reproducibility considerations, where applicable.
All scientific-editorial decisions must be made by authorized human editors. AI systems must not independently determine acceptance, rejection, revision requirements, or the scientific merit of a submission.
Editors must assess manuscripts within the recognized AHRMR Aims & Scope according to scholarly merit, research integrity, methodological appropriateness, and independent peer-review evidence.
Where confidentiality, authorization, and appropriate oversight are assured, editors may use automated technologies to:
Editors must not:
When automated screening indicates a potential integrity problem, the responsible editor must evaluate the supporting evidence and seek appropriate clarification.
AI-detection scores and similarity percentages are preliminary screening indicators, not independent proof of misconduct.
Eligible submissions must continue through AHRMR's double-anonymous peer-review process, normally involving at least two independent qualified human reviewers.
Peer reviewers are selected for their subject knowledge, methodological competence, academic experience, and ability to provide an independent evaluation of the submitted research.
Every review report must represent the reviewer's own critical assessment. The responsibility for evaluating scientific quality, theoretical contribution, methodology, evidence, and conclusions cannot be transferred to an AI system.
Reviewers may use AI-assisted tools to improve grammar, spelling, clarity, or translation of comments independently written by the reviewer.
Such assistance must not disclose the manuscript, unpublished findings, participant information, confidential editorial correspondence, or identifiable submission content to an unauthorized AI platform.
Reviewers who identify credible indications of fabricated references, invented datasets, manipulated findings, or undisclosed substantive AI misuse must communicate their concerns confidentially to the responsible editor.
Concerns should be supported by specific evidence. Reviewers must not independently accuse authors, contact their employers, or treat AI detector outputs as definitive evidence of misconduct.
AHRMR requires the protection of research participants, institutional records, unpublished manuscripts, restricted datasets, and confidential editorial materials.
These responsibilities are particularly important in studies involving employees, employment relationships, workplace behavior, recruitment, personnel management, performance assessment, organizational information, and other sensitive research contexts.
When AI-generated responses, synthetic organizational scenarios, or simulated observations are legitimately investigated as research objects, authors must identify their artificial origin, explain the study procedures, and avoid presenting them as genuine participant data.
Routine spelling correction, conventional grammar checking, formatting, or straightforward language correction without substantive content generation does not normally require a separate AI declaration.
Substantive use of generative AI must be disclosed, including extensive language restructuring, translation of manuscript drafts, generation or debugging of analytical code, AI-assisted research procedures, and other material assistance affecting manuscript preparation or analysis.
Mandatory submission placement: The AI-use declaration must be included in the separate Title Page & Author Information Form.
AHRMR applies double-anonymous peer review. Author-identifying declarations must not appear in the blinded manuscript.
Where AI or automated technologies materially contribute to research design, data collection, coding, analysis, experimental procedures, or literature-review methodology, sufficient non-identifying methodological information must also be included in the blinded manuscript.
This requirement does not introduce a third mandatory file at initial submission. The separate Title Page and the blinded manuscript remain the two required submission documents.
A. Language Editing or Translation
The authors used [AI tool, developer, and version] to assist with [describe the language editing or translation activities] during manuscript preparation. All assisted content was subsequently reviewed and corrected by the authors to preserve the intended scholarly meaning. The authors verified the final text and accept full responsibility for its accuracy, originality, and integrity.
B. Technical or Coding Assistance
The authors used [AI tool, developer, and version] to assist with [describe the technical or programming task]. Relevant procedures are reported in the Research Methodology section. All assisted code, calculations, and analytical outputs were independently tested and verified against the study data. The authors remain fully responsible for the validity of the findings.
C. AI as Part of a Research Method
The study employed [AI system or model] for [specific research procedure]. The methodological role, relevant configuration, validation procedures, ethical considerations, and limitations are described in the manuscript. The authors independently assessed the outputs and accept full responsibility for the reliability and interpretation of the research.
D. Optional Declaration of No Substantive AI Use
The authors declare that no substantive generative AI assistance was used in the intellectual development, analysis, interpretation, or preparation of this manuscript beyond routine conventional editing functions, where applicable.
Authors must adapt these statements to reflect their actual practices. Disclosure does not authorize activities otherwise prohibited under the journal's research integrity and publication ethics policies.
Suspected AI-related misconduct must be addressed through an objective, evidence-based, and proportionate editorial procedure consistent with applicable publication-ethics requirements.
AI-detection scores, automated classifications, or unsupported allegations are not sufficient grounds for a finding of misconduct.
AHRMR may examine relevant manuscript materials, research records, cited sources, methodological documentation, AI-use declarations, and explanations from the concerned parties.
Before disciplinary action is imposed, the concerned party should receive a reasonable opportunity to respond, subject to appropriate confidentiality and conflict-of-interest safeguards.
A peer-review report generated without independent scholarly assessment, or prepared through a serious breach of manuscript confidentiality, may be invalidated and excluded from editorial decision-making.
Depending on the established facts and severity, the journal may issue a formal warning, terminate an assignment, or remove the individual from its active reviewer pool.
Verified editorial misuse may lead to reassignment of a manuscript, withdrawal of handling authority, formal corrective action, or review of editorial appointment status.
An editor with a relevant conflict of interest must not determine the outcome of an investigation involving their own conduct.
When concerns are identified after publication, AHRMR may request an author explanation, review supporting research documentation, consult independent specialists, and take appropriate editorial action.
Depending on the evidence and severity of the issue, the journal may publish a correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction.
Post-publication notices must be transparent and linked to the original publication. The Version of Record must not be silently modified to conceal material research-integrity concerns.
| Party | Main Responsibility | AI-Related Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| Authors | Produce original, ethical, and verifiable scholarship. | Verify outputs, safeguard participants and research data, and disclose substantive AI use. |
| Reviewers | Provide independent and competent scholarly evaluation. | Protect confidentiality and do not delegate scientific judgment to AI. |
| Editors | Maintain impartial and independent editorial decisions. | Independently assess automated screening results and retain human decision authority. |
| Editorial Office | Maintain submissions, administrative records, and communication procedures. | Apply appropriate access controls, confidentiality measures, and documentation requirements. |
This policy complements the journal's existing publication-ethics, authorship, peer-review, plagiarism, confidentiality, research ethics, complaints, and post-publication policies.
The current harmonized AHRMR policy framework applies prospectively from 1 September 2026. This dedicated AI policy forms part of that framework when formally published.
Historical manuscripts, editorial records, valid publications, and bibliographic information are not automatically invalidated by subsequent policy changes. Concerns about earlier publications must be evaluated on their merits under applicable research-integrity procedures.
For Authors | For Reviewers | Policies & Publication Ethics
For policy clarification, confidential research-integrity concerns, or reports of suspected AI misuse, contact: advancesresearch@gmail.com
Advances in Human Resource Management Research (AHRMR)
Published by Yayasan Pendidikan Bukhari Dwi Muslim.
Responsible AI use, scholarly independence, research integrity, participant protection, and publication transparency.
AHRMR applies double-anonymous peer review and immediate Open Access under CC BY 4.0; authors retain copyright. Read the complete policies on authorship, research integrity, complaints, corrections, and retractions.
Advances in Human Resource Management Research (AHRMR) follows responsible scholarly publishing practices informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The sections below state the journal's core policies; operational author and reviewer instructions appear on their respective pages.
The current harmonized AHRMR policy framework applies prospectively from 1 September 2026. Valid historical articles, issues, publication dates, DOI records, authorship records and other bibliographic information are not retrospectively altered merely to match current policy.
Authorship is limited to individuals who have made a substantial scholarly contribution, participated in drafting or critical revision, approved the final submitted version, and accepted accountability for the work. Ghost, guest and gift authorship are not permitted.
Every submission must accurately identify author contributions using CRediT, with corresponding-author ORCID and applicable author declarations documented on the separate Title Page & Author Information Form. Changes to the author list require justification and agreement of all affected authors; post-publication changes must be documented transparently.
Authors must confirm that the work is original, is not concurrently submitted elsewhere, properly attributes prior work, includes no fabricated or manipulated research materials, and is approved by all listed authors. Any overlapping work, publicly available earlier version or relevant prior dissemination must be disclosed for editorial assessment. A separate mandatory originality letter is not required when the Title Page includes the necessary declaration.
AHRMR prohibits plagiarism, unattributed copying, inappropriate text recycling, redundant publication, duplicate submission, fabricated or unverifiable citations, citation manipulation, and misrepresentation of existing research. Sources of text, data, images, tables, methods and other protected material must be accurately attributed.
Similarity policy: AHRMR applies a maximum overall similarity threshold of 15% as an initial editorial-screening requirement. Similarity-detection software may be used at initial submission and, when necessary, after revisions.
A similarity score is not proof of plagiarism or a substitute for editorial judgment. Editors review the source, extent, location, context, quotation and attribution of matching passages. A score at or below 15% does not excuse plagiarism; a higher score may trigger clarification, correction or rejection depending on the evidence and journal policy.
In-text citations, references, quotations and DOI details must be accurate, complete and verifiable, following the journal's required APA 7 style.
Manuscripts passing initial screening normally undergo double-anonymous assessment by at least two independent reviewers. Reviewer recommendations are advisory, and the responsible academic editor evaluates the complete scholarly record before the final decision.
Editors and reviewers must disclose and manage relevant conflicts. Editorial decisions must not be influenced by ownership, financial interests, advertising, sponsorship, institutional relationships, APC payments or waiver eligibility.
All fields expressly recognized in the current Aims & Scope have equal standing. A submission within a stated field does not require an additional HRM, employee, workforce or workplace variable. Assessment addresses the actual research or review question, scholarly rigor, integrity and contribution.
Editors must not handle their own submissions or manuscripts involving a material conflict; an appropriate independent editor must be assigned. Reviewers must decline or consult the editor when an independent assessment cannot be assured.
APC administration begins only after final scientific-editorial acceptance. APC payments and waiver verification remain separate from scientific decisions. Production includes administrative verification, copyediting, proofreading, metadata checks and Version-of-Record preparation; it is not a continuation of ordinary peer review. Closed scientific matters should be reopened only if a material scientific, integrity, ethical, legal, authorship, metadata or publication blocker is identified. The official APC policy governs charges, waivers and payment procedures.
Complete Peer Review Process and Reviewer Responsibilities →
Authors must secure necessary ethics review, informed consent, organizational permissions and data-use authorization where applicable. Research involving human participants, sensitive records or other protected materials must meet relevant ethical and legal requirements. Approval and consent claims must never be fabricated or misrepresented.
Funding and material financial or non-financial competing interests must be disclosed, including an explicit no-conflict statement when applicable. Relevant professional, institutional, collaborative, competitive, supervisory and personal interests must also be declared. A data availability statement should accurately describe research data that are openly available, available on reasonable request, included with the article, legitimately restricted, non-shareable or not applicable. Editors may request relevant documentation for legitimate research-integrity checks.
Permitted assistance: AI tools may assist with routine spelling, grammar, language readability and appropriately controlled technical tasks, provided human authors review the results and retain responsibility. AI systems cannot be authors or co-authors.
Disclosure: Substantive AI assistance beyond routine spelling, grammar, formatting or straightforward language correction must be disclosed in the separate Title Page. State the tool or service, purpose, parts of the work affected, and nature or extent of assistance; include a version or access date when relevant for reproducibility. A declaration of no substantive AI use may be included where applicable.
Research methods: When AI or automated systems materially contribute to data collection, coding, analysis, experimental procedures or literature-review methods, describe the relevant reproducible procedures in the blinded manuscript without revealing author identities.
Prohibitions and accountability: Authors must verify factual claims, calculations, quotations, citations, DOI records and interpretative conclusions. Fabricated references, invented data or images misrepresented as authentic scientific evidence are unacceptable. Confidential third-party data must not be uploaded to unauthorized or insecure AI services. Reviewers and editors must not expose confidential submissions to insecure external systems or delegate scholarly judgment to AI.
AHRMR provides immediate Open Access to the published Version of Record without subscription or journal-imposed embargo. Authors retain copyright in their scholarly work; copyright ownership is not transferred to AHRMR or its publisher.
The published article is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits sharing and adaptation, including commercial reuse, with appropriate attribution, license identification and indication of changes.
Authors may archive or share their submitted manuscript, accepted manuscript and published Version of Record without a journal-imposed embargo, with clear version identification, appropriate credit and respect for any third-party rights. Authors are responsible for permissions covering material not included in the article's CC BY license.
AHRMR considers evidence-based concerns about research misconduct, plagiarism, authorship, citation manipulation, editorial or administrative conduct, reviewer behavior, peer-review manipulation, false ethics or consent information, conflicts of interest and procedural fairness. Complaints or appeals should identify the submission or publication and explain the concern with available supporting evidence.
Under appropriate confidentiality and conflict-of-interest safeguards, the journal may request an explanation, supporting files, independent scholarly advice or verification from institutions, research-integrity offices, ethics committees, funders or other relevant bodies as appropriate. Authors or other parties affected by an allegation should have a reasonable opportunity to respond. Outcomes are determined by the evidence and the seriousness of the concern, not by unsupported accusations.
Editorial appeals must state substantive procedural, factual or ethical grounds. Disagreement alone does not automatically justify reversal of a scholarly decision.
Readers and researchers may submit professional, evidence-based comments, clarifications or concerns about published work. Where justified, AHRMR may invite an author response, consult specialists or issue an editorial notice.
An otherwise reliable article with a material error that does not invalidate its principal findings may require a correction. Unresolved serious concerns or an ongoing investigation may require an Expression of Concern. Fundamentally unreliable findings, serious plagiarism, established misconduct, unethical research or another substantial integrity problem may require retraction. Notices must be transparent, identifiable and linked to the original article. AHRMR does not silently replace the Version of Record to conceal material changes.
Publication ethics and correction inquiries: advancesresearch@gmail.com · Official Contact → · Privacy Statement → · APC Policy →
