Advances in Economics & Financial Studies (AEFS) is committed to maintaining the integrity, transparency, quality, reliability, and accountability of the scholarly record.

The journal's editorial and publication practices are guided by internationally recognized principles of publication ethics, including relevant guidance and Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) .

These principles apply to authors, reviewers, academic editors, editorial and production staff, and the publisher, Yayasan Pendidikan Bukhari Dwi Muslim.

AEFS considers publication misconduct to include, but not be limited to:

• Plagiarism and inappropriate appropriation of text or ideas;
• Data fabrication or falsification;
• Image or figure manipulation that misrepresents research findings;
• Duplicate or redundant publication;
• Simultaneous submission to multiple journals;
• Ghost, guest, gift, or otherwise inappropriate authorship;
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• Citation manipulation;
• Peer-review manipulation;
• Misrepresentation of ethical approval or informed consent;
• Fabricated, false, or unverifiable citations or references;
• Misrepresentation or undisclosed misuse of generative AI;
• Other practices that compromise the integrity of the scholarly record.

Suspected misconduct may be investigated before or after publication. AEFS may request explanations, supporting documentation, underlying data or research materials, institutional confirmation, or independent expert advice where appropriate. Editorial action will depend on the nature, evidence, and severity of the issue.

Authorship should accurately reflect significant intellectual contributions to the work. To qualify as an author, an individual should satisfy all of the following:

1. Make a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work; or acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.
2. Draft the manuscript or revise it critically for important intellectual content.
3. Approve the final version to be published.
4. Agree to be accountable for the integrity and accuracy of the work.

Individuals who contribute to the research but do not satisfy all authorship criteria should be acknowledged appropriately rather than listed as authors. AEFS does not permit ghost authorship, guest authorship, or gift authorship.

Each manuscript must include an author-contribution statement. Authors are encouraged to describe individual contributions using the CRediT Contributor Roles Taxonomy where appropriate.

Changes in Authorship: Requests to add, remove, or change the order of authors after submission must include a clear explanation and written agreement from all affected authors. The Editor-in-Chief or responsible editor may approve or decline the request after considering the circumstances, publication stage, and research-integrity implications.

Requests for authorship changes after publication will be evaluated carefully. Where justified, the scholarly record should be updated through an appropriate linked correction or notice rather than by silently altering the published article.

AEFS uses a double-anonymous peer-review process. Author identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are concealed from authors.

After submission, manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening for relevance to the current AEFS Aims & Scope, scholarly quality, submission requirements, originality, research integrity, and suitability for external peer review.

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject or methodology of the manuscript.

Reviewer recommendations may include Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the editorial outcome.

The responsible editor evaluates the manuscript, review reports, author responses, revised manuscript, research-integrity considerations, and applicable journal policies when reaching or recommending an editorial decision. The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for academic editorial governance.

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality, disclose relevant conflicts of interest, provide objective and constructive assessments, and refrain from using privileged manuscript information for personal, professional, commercial, competitive, or research advantage.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding manuscripts under review, attempt to identify anonymized authors, or delegate a review without editorial authorization.

Where reviewer assessments differ substantially, the editor may evaluate the basis of disagreement, seek clarification, or obtain an additional independent review. Reviewer recommendations are not treated as a simple voting mechanism.

Manuscripts submitted to AEFS must represent original scholarly work. Authors must appropriately cite and acknowledge ideas, text, data, figures, tables, methods, and other materials derived from other sources.

Direct quotations must be clearly identified and appropriately cited. Paraphrased material must also be attributed to the original source. Inappropriate self-plagiarism, redundant publication, and inappropriate recycling of previously published material are not acceptable.

AEFS uses similarity-detection software as part of editorial screening. The similarity percentage is a screening indicator and is not used as the sole evidence of plagiarism. Editors evaluate the nature, extent, location, quotation status, and sources of matching text before reaching an editorial determination.

Problematic overlap may result in correction requests, rejection, or additional action under the journal's publication-misconduct procedures. Similar principles apply when inappropriate overlap is identified after publication.

A conflict of interest may arise when financial, professional, institutional, academic, collaborative, competitive, supervisory, or personal relationships could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, scholarly judgment.

Authors

Authors must disclose all relevant conflicts of interest and sources of funding. If no relevant conflict exists, the manuscript must include an explicit declaration.

Reviewers

Reviewers must disclose circumstances that could interfere with, or reasonably appear to interfere with, impartial assessment and should decline the review where appropriate independence cannot be maintained.

Editors

Editors must recuse themselves from manuscripts where they have a relevant conflict of interest. Such manuscripts must be assigned to another qualified academic editor who does not have the conflict.

Editor-Authored Manuscripts: An editor must not participate in screening, reviewer selection, access to confidential reviewer identities, evaluation of review reports, revision assessment, or editorial decision-making for a manuscript they have authored or co-authored. Editorial-team membership does not provide preferential treatment, expedited review, favorable reviewer selection, acceptance, APC exemption, or any other publication advantage.

Authors

Authors may use generative AI or automated tools to assist manuscript preparation, but human oversight remains mandatory. Human authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, interpretation, citations, references, analysis, and conclusions of the work.

Use of generative AI beyond routine spelling, grammar, formatting, or straightforward language correction must be transparently disclosed in the manuscript. AI systems cannot be listed as authors or co-authors.

Authors must independently verify factual claims, data interpretations, citations, quotations, and references suggested or generated by automated tools.

Images & Graphics

AI-assisted explanatory or illustrative graphics may be used where appropriate if their use is transparently disclosed and authors verify their accuracy and applicable rights. AI-generated material must not be represented as authentic empirical, photographic, experimental, or scientific evidence when it is not such evidence.

Reviewers & Editors

Confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, author information, review reports, or editorial correspondence must not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative AI systems where confidentiality or data protection cannot be assured. Generative AI must not replace independent scholarly judgment in peer review or editorial decision-making.

Research involving human participants, identifiable personal information, sensitive data, or other activities requiring ethical oversight must comply with applicable institutional, disciplinary, national, and regulatory ethical requirements.

Where ethical approval is required, authors must identify the approving institutional review board, research ethics committee, or equivalent body and provide relevant approval information in the manuscript.

Where informed consent is required, authors must confirm that appropriate consent was obtained from participants or legally authorized representatives. Consent for publication must also be obtained where published information, images, or details could identify an individual.

Research involving vulnerable populations requires particular attention to participant protection, confidentiality, voluntariness, risk, and informed consent.

Where formal ethical approval is not required under applicable rules, authors should be able to explain the basis for that determination if requested by the editorial office.

AEFS supports transparency, responsible data management, and reproducibility where appropriate to the research design.

Authors should retain research data and supporting materials for an appropriate period and should be prepared to provide sufficient information to editors when questions concerning accuracy, validity, or research integrity arise.

Where ethically, legally, and contractually permissible, authors are encouraged to make supporting data, code, instruments, analytical materials, or other research resources available through an appropriate repository and to cite deposited materials.

Where data cannot be shared because of participant privacy, confidentiality, commercial restrictions, legal requirements, ethical conditions, or third-party rights, authors should explain the restriction where appropriate.

Authors are encouraged to include a clear Data Availability Statement where relevant, indicating whether supporting data are openly available, available on reasonable request, restricted, or not applicable.

AEFS accepts legitimate complaints and appeals concerning editorial decisions, peer-review procedures, ethical concerns, editorial conduct, administrative processes, or published material.

Editorial Appeals

Authors who believe that a substantive editorial decision was based on a significant factual misunderstanding, procedural error, unmanaged conflict of interest, or important overlooked evidence may submit a reasoned appeal.

The appeal should identify the manuscript, decision being challenged, and specific grounds for reconsideration. Mere disagreement with reviewer recommendations does not automatically constitute grounds for overturning a decision.

Complaints

Complaints may concern editorial conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, inappropriate peer review, publication ethics, administrative conduct, or another aspect of journal operations.

1. The editorial office receives and records the allegation and available supporting information.
2. A preliminary assessment determines whether the allegation falls within the journal's responsibility and whether further inquiry is warranted.
3. Relevant conflicts of interest are identified and managed before substantive evaluation proceeds.
4. The corresponding author or another involved party may be asked to provide an explanation, supporting documentation, underlying data, or other relevant information.
5. Where necessary, AEFS may consult independent experts, the author's institution, research-integrity office, ethics committee, funding organization, publisher, or another journal.
6. The available evidence is evaluated and the appropriate editorial response determined.
7. Where the scholarly record is affected, action may include rejection, correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or another appropriate measure.

AEFS seeks to protect both the integrity of the scholarly record and procedural fairness. An allegation is not treated as established misconduct merely because it has been reported.

AEFS is committed to maintaining an accurate and trustworthy scholarly record. Post-publication action may be taken where errors or ethical concerns materially affect the published record.

Correction

A correction may be issued when an otherwise reliable article contains an error or omission requiring clarification but the principal findings remain valid. Corrections should identify and link to the original article.

Retraction

An article may be retracted where reliable evidence shows that findings are seriously unreliable, substantial plagiarism has occurred, findings were previously published without proper disclosure, research was conducted unethically, or other serious misconduct materially compromises the publication.

Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be issued when serious questions exist regarding a publication but available evidence remains inconclusive or an investigation is ongoing.

Integrity of the Version of Record

Substantive post-publication changes should not be made through silent replacement. Where correction is required, the change should be documented through an appropriate linked correction, notice, Expression of Concern, or retraction.

Withdrawal Before Publication

Authors may request withdrawal while a manuscript remains under consideration. The request must be submitted formally to the editorial office. Authors should not submit the same manuscript elsewhere until AEFS confirms that it is no longer under consideration. AEFS does not impose a separate withdrawal fee.

Copyright

Authors retain copyright in their published articles. Publication with AEFS does not transfer ownership of copyright from authors to the journal or publisher.

License

Published articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) .

Under CC BY 4.0, users may copy, redistribute, remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercial purposes, provided appropriate credit is given, the license is identified, and changes are indicated where applicable.

Third-Party Material

Authors are responsible for obtaining necessary rights or permission for third-party material not covered by the article's CC BY 4.0 license. Such material should be clearly credited and its licensing status identified where required.

Self-Archiving

• Authors may deposit or share the submitted manuscript in an appropriate repository or personal academic website with its status clearly identified.
• After acceptance, authors may deposit the accepted manuscript, clearly identifying it as an accepted manuscript and not the Version of Record.
• After publication, authors may deposit and share the Version of Record under its CC BY 4.0 license with full citation and DOI or official journal URL.
• Where a preprint or earlier version exists, authors are encouraged to update the record with a citation and link to the final Version of Record.

AEFS provides immediate open access to its published scholarly content. There is no embargo period for published articles, and readers are not required to pay subscription charges or register with the journal in order to read or download published articles.

AEFS supports open access because freely accessible scholarly research promotes dissemination, visibility, verification, reuse, and advancement of knowledge.

AEFS may permit limited and appropriate advertising or receive revenue from legitimate journal-related activities. Advertising, APC administration, publisher support, and other financial considerations must remain administratively separate from academic editorial decision-making.

Advertising relationships, sponsorship, APC revenue, publisher support, or other sources of income must not influence:

• Selection of manuscripts for peer review;
• Selection of reviewers;
• Reviewer recommendations;
• Editorial acceptance or rejection decisions;
• Timing or outcome of peer review;
• Interpretation or presentation of scholarly content.

Advertisements, where present, must be clearly distinguishable from editorial and scholarly content. AEFS does not imply endorsement of advertised products, commercial services, conferences, institutions, or organizations merely because advertising appears on the journal platform.

AEFS supports responsible scholarly discussion concerning articles published in the journal.

Readers, researchers, authors, reviewers, and other interested parties may contact the editorial office when they identify a potential error, methodological concern, ethical issue, or another matter requiring editorial attention.

Where appropriate, the journal may seek clarification from authors, consult independent experts, or take other appropriate steps. Outcomes may include an author response, correction, editorial notice, Expression of Concern, or retraction. Discussion should remain scholarly, evidence-based, professional, and respectful.