1. General Principles and Policy Scope

This policy applies to manuscript submissions, revisions, editorial screening, peer review, publication preparation, and post-publication activities conducted by AEFS.

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 economics, finance, or accounting variable when their actual subject is already within the journal's scope.

1. Human accountability. Authors, reviewers, and editors remain personally responsible for their intellectual contributions, assessments, recommendations, and editorial decisions.
2. Transparency. Substantive generative AI assistance must be accurately disclosed whenever required by this policy.
3. Scholarly integrity. AI-assisted research and writing must not produce fabricated evidence, misleading interpretations, unsupported claims, false citations, or plagiarized content.
4. Research ethics. The use of AI must respect informed consent, institutional approval, participant rights, organizational confidentiality, and applicable data-protection requirements.
5. Independent peer review. AI-generated evaluations must not substitute for assessments performed by qualified independent human reviewers.
6. Editorial independence. Scientific evaluation and publication decisions must remain under authorized human editorial responsibility.

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.

2. AI Usage Policy for Authors

2.1. Authorship and Intellectual Responsibility

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.

2.2. Permitted Uses of AI

Authors may use AI-assisted technologies for the following purposes, provided that appropriate verification and disclosure requirements are satisfied:

1. Language editing. Improving grammar, spelling, sentence structure, clarity, and academic readability without changing the substantive meaning of the research.
2. Translation assistance. Translating an author-prepared manuscript draft into English, provided the authors independently verify terminology, conceptual equivalence, methodological accuracy, and the translated arguments.
3. Technical and programming support. Assisting with the preparation or debugging of statistical, analytical, computational, and visualization scripts, with independent testing and validation of all resulting outputs.
4. Research-related AI methods. Using AI as a research instrument, computational method, analytical system, or research object where appropriately justified, ethically approved where required, transparently reported, and independently evaluated.
5. Explanatory graphics. Developing conceptual diagrams or non-deceptive illustrative materials where their use is appropriate, their meaning is accurate, and relevant disclosure and intellectual-property requirements are satisfied.

2.3. Prohibited Uses of AI

Authors must not use AI to:

1. Delegate the central scientific argument, literature synthesis, interpretation of findings, or conclusions to an AI system without genuine independent scholarly work and verification.
2. Fabricate research participants, participant responses, questionnaire data, interview transcripts, organizational records, performance indicators, or statistical results.
3. Generate fictitious market observations, financial records, organizational case evidence, or research interviews and misrepresent them as authentic research data.
4. Manipulate research images, tables, charts, figures, or analytical outputs in a manner that misrepresents actual evidence.
5. Include fictitious or unverified scholarly publications, quotations, bibliographic information, or DOI records.
6. Upload identifiable participant data, confidential employee records, private interview materials, or restricted organizational information to unauthorized or insecure AI services.
7. Present predominantly AI-generated scholarly material as an original human contribution without sufficient independent intellectual work, verification, and disclosure.

2.4. Verification of Evidence and References

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.

2.5. Research Papers and Literature Review Papers

The requirements of this policy apply to both manuscript types accepted by AEFS: 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.

3. AI Usage Policy for Editors

3.1. Human-Led Editorial Decision Making

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 AEFS Aims & Scope according to scholarly merit, research integrity, methodological appropriateness, and independent peer-review evidence.

3.2. Permitted Administrative Assistance

Where confidentiality, authorization, and appropriate oversight are assured, editors may use automated technologies to:

1. Check manuscript formatting, required submission components, declarations, and administrative compliance.
2. Support secure similarity screening and preliminary reference-integrity checks, subject to human examination.
3. Identify subject or methodological expertise and potential peer reviewers using appropriately accessible academic information.
4. Improve language quality in routine editorial correspondence, invitations, and administrative communications.
5. Support internal administrative checklists and workflow organization without disclosing protected submission information to unauthorized services.

3.3. Editorial Restrictions

Editors must not:

1. Upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, participant information, review reports, or editorial correspondence to public or insecure AI systems.
2. Delegate substantive scientific evaluation or publication decisions to generative AI.
3. Reject a submission solely because an AI detector reports a numerical probability of AI-generated content.
4. Treat AI-generated scientific comments, bibliographic claims, methodological criticisms, or recommendations as verified findings without independent assessment.
5. Use external automated services in a manner that compromises participant confidentiality, intellectual property, or the integrity of peer review.

3.4. Editorial Oversight

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 AEFS's double-anonymous peer-review process, normally involving at least two independent qualified human reviewers.

4. AI Usage Policy for Peer Reviewers

4.1. Independent Expert Judgment

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.

4.2. Permitted Limited Assistance

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.

4.3. Prohibited Reviewer Practices

1. Uploading a manuscript, abstract, tables, figures, interview materials, datasets, or manuscript extracts to public or insecure AI services.
2. Requesting AI to produce a complete peer-review report or substitute for independent scholarly analysis.
3. Delegating the identification of methodological weaknesses, interpretation of findings, or publication recommendations to an automated system without independent evaluation.
4. Submitting AI-generated criticisms based on invented references, unsupported arguments, or unexamined manuscript content.
5. Using privileged manuscript information for personal, professional, competitive, commercial, or unrelated research purposes.

4.4. Reporting Suspected AI Misuse

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.

5. Confidentiality, Data Security and Research Ethics

AEFS requires the protection of research participants, institutional records, unpublished manuscripts, restricted datasets, and confidential editorial materials.

These responsibilities are particularly important in studies involving financial records, market transactions, household information, employees, organizational information, and other sensitive research contexts.

1. Participant protection. Identifiable information and sensitive participant records must be protected in accordance with applicable ethical and legal requirements.
2. Organizational confidentiality. Employee records, internal organizational documents, compensation information, performance records, and restricted institutional datasets must not be disclosed without appropriate authority.
3. External AI systems. Confidential data and manuscripts must not be uploaded to public or insecure AI services. Proposed external processing involving confidential content requires prior explicit editorial authorization and adequate safeguards.
4. Research ethics compliance. Authors must respect applicable ethical approval, informed consent, participant privacy, data-use authorization, and institutional permission requirements.
5. Incident reporting. Suspected unauthorized disclosure, privacy breaches, or misuse of protected research material must be reported promptly through appropriate editorial or institutional channels.

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.

6. Declaration and Disclosure of AI Use

6.1. When Disclosure Is Required

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.

6.2. Where the Declaration Must Be Placed

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.

6.3. Required Declaration Components

1. Tool identification: Name, developer, and relevant model or version where identifiable.
2. Purpose and scope: A specific explanation of which activities, manuscript sections, or research procedures were assisted by AI.
3. Human verification: Confirmation that the authors independently examined, corrected, tested, and validated the relevant AI-assisted outputs.
4. Human responsibility: Confirmation that the authors accept full responsibility for originality, research integrity, accuracy, and scientific conclusions.

6.4. Standard Declaration Templates

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.

7. Policy Violations, Investigation and Sanctions

7.1. Fair Investigation and Due Process

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.

AEFS 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.

7.2. Possible Actions Concerning Authors

1. Minor disclosure deficiencies. Authors may be requested to complete or correct an omitted AI-use declaration when the underlying assistance was permitted and the reliability of the research is not compromised.
2. Materially deficient submissions. Where verified AI misuse compromises scientific originality, citation accuracy, methodological integrity, or research reliability, the journal may require substantive correction or reject the manuscript.
3. Serious research misconduct. Established fabrication, falsification, deliberate misrepresentation, severe confidentiality violations, or fundamentally unreliable published findings may result in retraction and proportionate additional measures, including institutional notification or submission restrictions where justified.

7.3. Possible Actions Concerning Reviewers

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.

7.4. Possible Actions Concerning Editors

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.

7.5. Post-Publication Actions

When concerns are identified after publication, AEFS 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.

8. Responsibilities and Implementation

This policy complements the journal's existing publication-ethics, authorship, peer-review, plagiarism, confidentiality, research ethics, complaints, and post-publication policies.

This dedicated AI policy complements the existing AEFS publication-ethics requirements when formally published. Its publication does not imply retrospective changes to earlier editorial or publication records.

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.