Accepted Manuscript Types

• Research Paper: Original research using an appropriate and defensible quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method, archival, experimental, computational, or other research design.
• Literature Review Paper: A critical scholarly synthesis supported by an explicitly identified, transparent, and appropriately justified literature-review method.

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 subjects expressly recognized within AJEB's economics and business scholarly scope are evaluated for their substantive research contribution; an unrelated HRM or other variable is not required merely for eligibility.

Manuscript Format and Reporting

• Language and file: Clear academic Bahasa Indonesia or English, using one language consistently; editable Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx), prepared using the current Advances in Research English Manuscript Template.
• Page layout: A4, single column, Calisto MT 11 pt, single spacing.
• Title, abstract and keywords: Maximum 20 words in the title; structured abstract no longer than 200 words; 1–6 keywords.
• References: APA 7th edition; a relevant, sufficiently comprehensive, and verifiable scholarly evidence base. Prioritize relevant recent research, normally from approximately the last seven years where appropriate; older foundational literature remains suitable when scholarly necessary.

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.

English Manuscript Template ↗   ·   Template Bahasa Indonesia ↗   ·   Title Page & Author Information Form ↗

Two Required Files at Initial Submission

• Blinded Manuscript: Article title, abstract, keywords, manuscript type, manuscript text, tables, figures, and references, without author names, affiliations, email addresses, identifying acknowledgements, revealing document properties, or other author-identifying information.
• Separate Title Page & Author Information Form: Author names, affiliations, and email addresses; corresponding-author information and ORCID; CRediT contributions; funding; conflicts of interest; research ethics, institutional approval, and consent where applicable; data availability; acknowledgements; third-party permissions; originality and authorship declaration; and applicable AI-use disclosure.

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.

Originality and Authorship Declaration

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.

Peer Review, Revision and Point-by-Point Response

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 →

Submit through OJS

Formal submissions must use the AJEB 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. AJEB provides immediate Open Access; authors retain copyright, and published articles use CC BY 4.0. The APC is IDR 1,000,000 per accepted manuscript. Requests for exceptional waivers or discounts may be considered individually; administration begins only after final scientific-editorial acceptance.

Make a Submission →   ·   Register →   ·   Login →   ·   Publication Frequency →   ·   Privacy Statement →

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 AJEB.

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 beyond the journal's Aims & 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, respondent answers, questionnaire data, interview transcripts, financial or organizational records, performance indicators, or statistical results.
3. Generate fictitious economic observations, organizational case evidence, financial or personnel records, or managerial 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 AJEB: 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 AJEB 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 AJEB'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

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

These responsibilities are particularly important in studies involving research participants, employees, customers, financial information, personnel records, organizational information, confidential interviews, 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 into Bahasa Indonesia or English, 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.

AJEB 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, AJEB 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.

The current harmonized AJEB 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.

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

AJEB 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 numerical similarity result does not excuse plagiarism or establish misconduct by itself; any concern may warrant clarification, correction or rejection according to 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 already within AJEB's economics and business-centered scholarly scope does not require an unrelated disciplinary 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

AJEB 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 AJEB 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

AJEB 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, AJEB 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. AJEB 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 →

Advertising, Direct Marketing and Editorial Independence

Any journal advertising, institutional communication, sponsorship or direct outreach must be clearly differentiated from peer-reviewed editorial content. Commercial, financial or promotional relationships do not influence reviewer selection, research evaluation, manuscript decisions or the order of scientific publication.

Communication about calls for papers, journal services and manuscripts must be accurate and non-misleading. No publisher, broker, advertiser or third party may promise guaranteed acceptance in exchange for payment.

Withdrawal and Publisher Responsibility

Authors may request withdrawal of an unpublished manuscript by contacting the Editorial Office through the relevant OJS workflow. They should not treat a withdrawal as effective until the Editorial Office confirms it. Published articles are part of the scholarly record and are addressed through a transparent correction, Expression of Concern or retraction where justified.

The publisher supports technical infrastructure, access continuity, recordkeeping and editorial independence. Financial and administrative arrangements must not determine academic manuscript outcomes.