Authorship, Contributorship and Originality

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.

Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

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.

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.

Peer Review and Editorial Independence

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 →

Research Ethics, Conflicts of Interest and Data

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.

Policy on Generative AI and Automated Tools

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.

Read the Full AI Tools Usage Policy →

Open Access, Copyright and License

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.

Complaints, Appeals and Allegations of Misconduct

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.

Post-Publication Discussion, Corrections and Retractions

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 →