Advances in Human Resource Management Research (AHRMR) 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 all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, reviewers, academic editors, editorial and production personnel, and the publisher, Yayasan Pendidikan Bukhari Dwi Muslim.

Research and Publication Misconduct

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

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

Suspected misconduct may be investigated before or after publication. AHRMR may request explanations, supporting documentation, underlying data or research materials, institutional confirmation, or independent expert advice where appropriate. Editorial action depends 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 criteria:

1. Make a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, interpretation, or scholarly synthesis of data or evidence.
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 meet all authorship criteria should be acknowledged appropriately rather than listed as authors.

AHRMR does not permit ghost authorship, guest authorship, or gift authorship.

CRediT Contribution Statement

Each submitted manuscript must provide an author-contribution statement using the CRediT Contributor Roles Taxonomy as applicable. The contribution of each listed author must be identified transparently.

Corresponding Author & ORCID

A corresponding author must be clearly designated. A valid ORCID iD is required for the corresponding author. ORCID information for other authors should be supplied where available and should remain consistent with the Title Page and OJS metadata.

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

AHRMR 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 AHRMR Aims & Scope, manuscript-type and submission compliance, scholarly contribution, originality, research integrity, ethical requirements, reference integrity, basic methodological suitability, and suitability for external peer review.

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise.

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 academic editor evaluates the manuscript, review reports, author responses, revised manuscript, research-integrity considerations, and 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 about manuscripts under review, attempt to identify anonymized authors, or delegate a review to another person without editorial authorization.

Where reviewer assessments differ substantially, the responsible 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.

If AHRMR publishes a special issue or guest-edited collection, all manuscripts remain subject to the journal's established editorial, ethical, conflict-of-interest, and peer-review standards. Manuscripts involving a guest editor or another editor as an author must be handled independently by a qualified editor without the relevant conflict of interest.

Manuscripts submitted to AHRMR 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.

AHRMR 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 material before reaching an editorial determination.

A manuscript with inappropriate textual overlap may be returned for correction or declined. Serious or intentional plagiarism may lead to rejection and, where appropriate, further action under the journal's publication-misconduct procedures.

The same principles apply when problematic overlap is identified after publication. Post-publication cases may result in correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or another appropriate editorial action.

A conflict of interest may arise when financial, professional, institutional, academic, collaborative, competitive, supervisory, or personal relationships could influence, or could 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, an explicit declaration must be provided.

Reviewers

Reviewers must disclose relationships or circumstances that could interfere with, or reasonably appear to interfere with, an impartial assessment. A reviewer should decline the review when an appropriately independent assessment cannot be provided.

Editors

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have a relevant conflict of interest. Such manuscripts must be assigned to another qualified academic editor without the conflict.

Editorial Team membership does not provide preferential treatment, expedited review, favorable reviewer selection, acceptance, APC exemption, or another publication advantage.

Authors

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

Use of generative AI beyond routine spelling, grammar, formatting, or straightforward language correction must be transparently disclosed.

AI systems and automated tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors because they cannot assume responsibility, approve the final manuscript, disclose conflicts of interest, or be accountable for scholarly work.

Generative AI output must not be presented as authoritative scholarly evidence merely because it was generated by an automated system. Authors must independently verify factual claims, data interpretations, citations, quotations, references, calculations, and analytical outputs 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 the authors verify accuracy and applicable rights. AI-generated material must not be presented as authentic empirical, photographic, experimental, or scientific evidence when it is not such evidence.

Reviewers & Editors

Generative AI must not replace independent scholarly judgment in peer review or editorial decision-making. Reviewers and editors remain personally responsible for assessments, recommendations, and decisions made in their editorial roles.

Where uncertainty exists regarding the confidentiality or appropriate use of a particular AI tool, reviewers or editors should not provide confidential manuscript content to that tool.

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

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

Where organizational, institutional, governmental, data-holder, instrument-owner, or other authorization is required, authors are responsible for obtaining the applicable permission and for being able to provide evidence when reasonably requested.

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.

AHRMR may request documentation supporting ethical approval, informed consent, organizational authorization, instrument or scale permissions, copyright permissions, or related ethical compliance where necessary.

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

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

Where ethically, legally, contractually, and technically 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, ethics-approval conditions, third-party rights, or other legitimate limitations, authors should identify the relevant restriction.

Editors may request supporting information during peer review, editorial verification, or an investigation of research integrity. Such requests must take account of ethical, legal, privacy, confidentiality, intellectual-property, and data-protection obligations.

AHRMR 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 evidence that was overlooked may submit a reasoned appeal.

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

An appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be changed. Where appropriate, the case may be reconsidered by an editor who was not responsible for the original disputed decision.

Complaints

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

A complaint involving the editor or staff member who originally handled the matter should, where practicable, be considered by another appropriate person who does not have the relevant conflict of interest.

Where a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the matter should not be assessed solely by the Editor-in-Chief. An appropriate independent editorial or publisher-level route should be used according to the nature of the complaint.

Complaints and appeals are handled as confidentially, fairly, and independently as reasonably possible. The journal may consult reviewers, editorial personnel, independent experts, institutions, or other relevant parties where necessary.

AHRMR takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously, whether they concern a manuscript under consideration or a published article.

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, the journal may consult independent experts, the author's institution, a research-integrity office, ethics committee, funding organization, publisher, or another relevant body.
6. The journal evaluates the available evidence and determines the appropriate editorial response.
7. Where the scholarly record is affected, actions may include rejection, correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or another appropriate action.

AHRMR aims 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. Relevant evidence should be assessed before a conclusion is reached.

AHRMR is committed to maintaining an accurate and trustworthy scholarly record. Post-publication action is taken when 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 error does not invalidate the article's principal findings. The correction should clearly identify and link to the original article.

Retraction

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

A retraction notice should clearly identify the affected article, state the reason for retraction where legally and ethically appropriate, and remain permanently linked to the scholarly record.

Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be issued when serious questions exist about a publication but available evidence is inconclusive, an investigation is ongoing, or a definitive outcome cannot yet reasonably be reached.

Integrity of the Version of Record

Substantive post-publication changes must not be made through silent replacement of the published article. Where the scholarly record requires correction, the change should be documented through an appropriate linked correction, editorial notice, Expression of Concern, or retraction.

Minor production corrections that do not alter scholarly meaning should nevertheless be managed carefully to preserve the integrity and traceability of the Version of Record.

Withdrawal Before Publication

Authors may request withdrawal of a manuscript that remains under consideration. The request must be submitted formally to the editorial office. Authors should not submit the same manuscript elsewhere until AHRMR has confirmed that it is no longer under consideration.

Withdrawal of an unpublished manuscript is distinct from retraction of a published article. AHRMR does not impose a separate withdrawal fee.

Copyright

Authors retain copyright in their published articles. Publication with AHRMR does not transfer ownership of copyright from the 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.

Users may not impose legal or technological restrictions that prevent others from exercising rights permitted by the license.

Third-Party Material

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

Self-Archiving

• Authors may deposit or share a submitted manuscript in an appropriate repository or personal academic website, with its status clearly identified.
• After acceptance, authors may deposit the accepted manuscript. Before formal publication, it should be clearly identified as an accepted manuscript and not as the Version of Record.
• After publication, authors may deposit and share the published Version of Record under its CC BY 4.0 license, with full citation and DOI or official journal URL.

Where a preprint or earlier manuscript version exists, authors are encouraged to update the record after publication by providing a citation and link to the final Version of Record.

Advances in Human Resource Management Research (AHRMR) provides immediate open access to its published scholarly content.

There is no embargo period for published articles. Readers are not required to pay a subscription fee or register with the journal to read or download published articles.

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

AHRMR does not require APC payment during submission, editorial screening, revision, or peer review. APC or waiver administration begins only after the manuscript has received final editorial acceptance.

For manuscripts subject to the AHRMR standard APC, payment instructions are issued only through an official journal invoice after final editorial acceptance. Authors should not make payments based on unofficial requests, third-party intermediaries, or promises of guaranteed publication.

Where an approved waiver applies, the manuscript proceeds through the same editorial and publication-quality requirements as manuscripts subject to an APC.

The detailed applicable APC amount, affiliation-based waiver criteria, invoicing rules, and administrative procedures are stated in the official AHRMR APC Policy.

Final editorial acceptance closes the ordinary scientific-editorial evaluation stage. The accepted manuscript then enters AHRMR's controlled post-acceptance publication workflow.

Post-acceptance processing is intended to prepare the accepted manuscript for accurate, consistent, and traceable publication. It is not a continuation of peer review and should not reopen scientifically closed matters merely for stylistic or administrative reasons.

Scientific content, findings, interpretations, and other substantively accepted elements should not be silently altered during copyediting or production.

Where post-acceptance processing identifies missing, ambiguous, conflicting, or potentially substantive information, the issue must be escalated through the responsible editorial or Managing Editor authority rather than resolved through unsupported assumption or silent substantive correction.

Author metadata, ORCID, CRediT contributions, funding, conflicts of interest, acknowledgments, data-availability information, AI disclosure, publication metadata, and other controlled publication declarations must be verified before publication where applicable.

AHRMR 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, publisher support, APC revenue, or other sources of income must not influence:

• The selection of manuscripts for peer review;
• The selection of reviewers;
• Reviewer recommendations;
• Editorial acceptance or rejection decisions;
• The timing or outcome of peer review;
• The interpretation or presentation of scholarly content.

Advertisements, where present, must be clearly distinguishable from editorial and scholarly content.

AHRMR does not imply endorsement of an advertised product, commercial service, conference, institution, or organization merely because advertising appears on the journal platform.

AHRMR 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 that may require editorial attention.

Where appropriate, the journal may seek clarification from the original authors, consult independent experts, or take other appropriate steps to evaluate the concern.

Depending on the nature and outcome of the matter, the journal may publish a correction, author response, editorial notice, Expression of Concern, or retraction.

Post-publication discussion should focus on scholarly evidence and should be conducted professionally, responsibly, and respectfully.

The current harmonized AHRMR journal-policy framework applies prospectively from 1 September 2026.

Manuscripts submitted before this date may have been processed under the editorial policies, submission requirements, review arrangements, or publication procedures applicable at the relevant time.

Previously published articles, volumes, issues, publication dates, pagination, DOI records, editorial notices, and other bibliographic information remain part of AHRMR's permanent historical scholarly record.

The implementation of the current policy framework does not retrospectively alter or redefine valid historical editorial decisions, manuscript classifications, publication dates, issue structures, author records, or bibliographic information merely to make earlier records resemble current practice.