Preamble

The Emirati Journal of Business, Economics & Social Studies (EJBESS), published by the Emirates Scholar Center for Research & Studies (ESRC), is committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and accountability at every stage of the scholarly publishing process. These policies govern the conduct of all parties involved in the publication pipeline — editors, reviewers, authors, and the publisher — and apply equally to all submission types, including original research articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, case studies, policy papers, and conceptual frameworks.

EJBESS aligns its practices with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) Transparency Principles, and ESRC institutional ethical guidelines. All stakeholders are expected to familiarize themselves with these policies and uphold them in full.

1. Editors' Responsibilities

1.1 Editorial Decision-Making

Editors bear primary responsibility for deciding which manuscripts are published in EJBESS. All
decisions must be grounded exclusively in scholarly merit, scope alignment, methodological
soundness, and ethical compliance — never in the commercial, political, or personal interests of
any party. Relevant scope areas include, but are not limited to, AI-driven business strategies,
SME development and policy, sustainability in emerging markets, digital transformation, fintech
regulation, and behavioral economics.

Editors are expected to treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents prior to
publication and to recuse themselves from any manuscript in which they have a conflict of
interest, including prior or ongoing collaboration with any author within the preceding three
years.

1.2 Peer Review Oversight

EJBESS operates a rigorous double-blind peer review system. Editors are responsible for:

• Assigning a minimum of two qualified reviewers per manuscript, selected based on demonstrated expertise in the relevant JEL classification codes.
• Ensuring reviewers are free from conflicts of interest with the authors or the submitted work.
• Monitoring review timelines and following up with reviewers to prevent undue delays.
• Making final accept, revise, or reject decisions based on the totality of reviewer feedback and their own editorial judgment, rather than mechanically aggregating reviewer scores.
• Communicating decisions to authors with sufficient detail to support revision or
  resubmission where appropriate.

1.3 Integrity Screening

Before manuscript assignment to peer review, editors conduct or oversee an integrity screening
process that includes plagiarism detection (using iThenticate or equivalent), assessment of
potential AI-generated content misuse (see Section 6), verification of ethics compliance
documentation including Data Availability Statements (DAS) and Institutional Review Board
(IRB) approvals, and confirmation that the manuscript's reference list adheres to APA 7th Edition
or Harvard formatting standards.

Manuscripts that fail integrity screening may be returned to authors for revision prior to peer
review, desk-rejected without review, or flagged for misconduct investigation depending on the
nature and severity of the concern.

1.4 Corrections and Retractions
Editors are responsible for issuing post-publication corrections, expressions of concern, or
retractions in accordance with COPE flowcharts and guidelines. All such decisions must be
documented, communicated to relevant indexing databases and repositories, and reflected in
updated Versions of Record (VoR). Retraction notices must clearly state the reason for retraction,
be linked to the original article, and remain permanently accessible.

Reviewers' Responsibilities

2.1 Eligibility and Acceptance
Reviewers invited by EJBESS should accept review assignments only when they possess
genuine expertise in the manuscript's subject area and methodology, and when they are able to
complete the review within the agreed timeframe — typically 21 days from assignment.
Reviewers who are unable to complete a review on time must notify the editorial office promptly
so that alternative arrangements can be made.

2.2 Review Quality and Standards
Reviewers are expected to provide thorough, constructive, evidence-based assessments that
evaluate the manuscript's originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, scope
alignment (including relevance to emerging markets, digital transformation, sustainability, and
policy dimensions), clarity of argument, and the reliability and replicability of reported findings.
Reviews should be specific, actionable, and respectful in tone, offering concrete suggestions for
improvement regardless of the overall recommendation.

2.3 Confidentiality and Anonymity

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts under review as strictly confidential. They must not share,
discuss, or disclose any part of a manuscript with third parties without explicit editorial
permission. Reviewer identities are similarly protected under the double-blind system and must
not be voluntarily disclosed to authors or the public.

2.4 Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose to the editor any conflict of interest that could reasonably affect the
objectivity of their assessment. This includes current or recent professional collaboration with
the authors, direct competitive relationships, personal relationships, or institutional affiliations
that could create bias. Reviewers who identify a conflict after accepting an assignment must
notify the editorial office immediately and withdraw from the review.

2.5 Ethical Flagging

Reviewers who encounter potential ethical concerns during their assessment — including
suspected data fabrication or falsification, undisclosed redundant publication (including & "salami"
slicing), unacknowledged dual submission, inappropriate authorship, or undisclosed conflicts of
interest — must report these concerns directly to the editor rather than raising them within the
review itself. Such reports will be handled confidentially and in accordance with COPE
guidance.

3. Authors' Responsibilities

3.1 Originality and Prior Publication

By submitting to EJBESS, authors certify that the manuscript is entirely original, has not been
previously published in any form (including as a preprint in a language other than English
without disclosure), and is not currently under review at any other journal or publication outlet.
Manuscripts that recycle substantial portions of previously published text without appropriate
attribution constitute self-plagiarism and will be treated as a serious ethical violation.

3.2 Authorship and Contributorship

All individuals listed as authors must have made a substantive contribution to the work as
defined by the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) framework, which encompasses
conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing,
visualization, supervision, and funding acquisition, among other categories. Authors are required
to accurately assign CRediT roles to all contributors at submission.

Guest authorship (including individuals listed solely due to seniority or institutional affiliation)
and ghost authorship (excluding individuals who made material contributions) are both
prohibited. Any changes to authorship after submission must be approved by the editor and
require written confirmation from all listed authors.

All corresponding authors must provide a verified ORCID iD at submission.

3.3 Disclosure Requirements

Authors must disclose at the time of submission all funding sources, institutional affiliations, and
financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that could be perceived as influencing the research
design, interpretation, or conclusions. These disclosures will be published alongside the article.
Failure to make required disclosures constitutes misconduct.
Ethics statements are required for all research involving human subjects, including survey-based
studies and secondary data analysis where identifiable personal data is involved. Authors must
provide evidence of IRB or equivalent ethics committee approval, and where applicable, confirm
GDPR compliance and the use of informed consent procedures.

3.4 Data Availability and Reproducibility

EJBESS is committed to open and reproducible science. Authors are required to submit a Data
Availability Statement (DAS) describing where and how the data underlying the study's findings
can be accessed. Where data cannot be made publicly available due to confidentiality, legal, or
proprietary constraints, authors must explain these restrictions clearly. EJBESS strongly
encourages the deposit of datasets, replication code, and supplementary materials in recognized
repositories such as Zenodo, OSF, or Harvard Dataverse, with persistent identifiers linked in the
published article.

3.5 Third-Party Content and Permissions

Authors are solely responsible for obtaining written permissions for the reproduction of any
copyrighted material — including figures, tables, scales, and instruments — from third-party
sources. Evidence of such permissions must be provided at submission.

3.6 Post-Publication Obligations

Authors who discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work after publication
must notify the EJBESS editorial office promptly and cooperate fully with any correction or

retraction process. Authors are also expected to respond to post-publication queries from editors,
readers, or the research community regarding methodology, data, or reported findings.

 

4. Publisher's  Responsibilities (ESRC)

4.1 Editorial Independence

ESRC is committed to the full independence of the editorial process. Decisions regarding the
acceptance or rejection of manuscripts are made solely by editors on the basis of scholarly merit
and ethical compliance. No commercial partner, advertiser, sponsor, institutional donor, or
member of ESRC's administrative leadership may influence editorial decisions. EJBESS operates
under a Diamond Open Access, no-APC model, meaning that neither authors nor readers incur
charges, and that the absence of financial transactions between authors and the journal eliminates
a common source of editorial pressure.

4.2 Long-Term Preservation and Discoverability

ESRC ensures the permanent preservation and discoverability of all published content through
registration of Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) via Crossref, archiving of all content in
CLOCKSS (Controlled Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe), and indexing submissions in major
databases and directories aligned with DOAJ Transparency Criteria. Metadata for all published
articles — including ORCID iDs, ROR institutional identifiers, and Funder IDs — is maintained
in accordance with Crossref and OpenAIRE standards.

4.3 Transparency and Accountability

ESRC publishes and regularly updates key performance metrics including average time from
submission to first decision, time from acceptance to publication, overall acceptance rates by
manuscript type, and the number of corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions issued in
each calendar year. These metrics are publicly available on the EJBESS website to support
accountability and informed submission decisions.

 

5. Misconduct Handling and Appeals

5.1 Reporting Concerns

Allegations of research or publication misconduct — whether submitted by editors, reviewers,
readers, institutional representatives, or third parties — are taken seriously and handled
confidentially. Concerns should be submitted in writing to researchoffice@emiratesscholar.com
with supporting documentation where available.

5.2 Investigation Process

All allegations follow a structured, COPE-guided process:
Stage 1 — Desk Assessment (within 48 hours): The editorial office reviews the allegation to
determine whether it falls within the scope of a potential ethical violation and whether sufficient
information has been provided to proceed. Frivolous or unsupported allegations may be closed at
this stage with written notification to the complainant.

Stage 2 — Investigation: For allegations that proceed, the editor-in-chief or a designated
editorial committee reviews all available evidence, including submission logs, correspondence
records, institutional disclosures, and any documentation provided by the complainant. Where
appropriate, the accused party is notified and given the opportunity to respond. For allegations
involving serious misconduct, the relevant institution(s) may be formally notified and invited to
conduct a parallel investigation.

Stage 3 — Outcome and Action: Depending on the findings, outcomes may include formal
closure with no action taken, issuance of a Correction to the published record, publication of an
Expression of Concern pending further investigation, or Retraction of the article with a published
retraction notice. All outcomes are documented internally and communicated to all relevant
parties.

5.3 Appeals

Authors, reviewers, or complainants who wish to appeal an editorial decision or the outcome of a
misconduct investigation may do so by submitting a written appeal to
researchoffice@emiratesscholar.com within 30 days of receiving the decision. Appeals must
clearly state the grounds for appeal and provide any new evidence or arguments not previously
considered. All appeals will be acknowledged within five business days and resolved within 45
days of receipt.

 

6. Generative AI Tools Policy

6.1 Policy Rationale

The rapid adoption of large language models and other generative AI tools — including
ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, and equivalent systems — in research and academic writing
presents both opportunities and serious risks to publication integrity. EJBESS recognizes that AI
tools may legitimately support certain aspects of the research and writing process while also
creating conditions for undisclosed content generation, inaccurate attribution, fabricated
citations, and erosion of scholarly accountability. This policy establishes clear, enforceable
standards for the use of such tools across all stages of manuscript preparation and submission.

6.2 Core Principle: AI Cannot Be an Author

Generative AI tools and large language models do not meet the criteria for authorship under any
circumstances. Authorship requires the capacity to take responsibility for the integrity of the
work, to consent to submission and publication, and to be accountable for errors — capacities
that AI systems do not possess. Listing an AI tool as an author or co-author is prohibited and
constitutes a misrepresentation of the scholarly record.

6.3 Permitted Uses

Authors may use generative AI tools for the following limited, non-substantive purposes,
provided that such use is fully disclosed in accordance with Section 6.5:

• Language editing and proofreading: Improving grammar, syntax, spelling, and clarity of expression in text that the authors have themselves written.
• Translation assistance: Supporting the translation of content from the author's first language into English, where the author retains full responsibility for accuracy.
• Literature search support: Assisting with the identification of relevant literature, provided that all cited sources are independently verified by the authors.
• Code formatting and debugging: Minor assistance with the formatting or syntax of statistical or programming code, where the research design and analytical logic remain
  entirely the authors' own.

6.4 Prohibited Uses

The following uses of generative AI tools are prohibited and, if discovered, will be treated as
research misconduct:

• Substantive text generation: Using AI tools to draft, write, or generate any portion of the manuscript's introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, or conclusion sections, even if subsequently edited by the authors.
• Data generation or fabrication: Using AI tools to generate, simulate, or impute research data, findings, or statistical outputs that are then presented as empirically derived results.
• Citation fabrication: Relying on AI-generated reference lists without independent
  verification of each source's existence, accuracy, and relevance. AI tools are known to
  produce plausible but non-existent citations ("hallucinations"), and authors bear full
  responsibility for the accuracy of all references.
• Peer review assistance: Reviewers must not use generative AI tools to assist in the
  preparation of their review reports. Doing so violates the confidentiality of the
  manuscript and undermines the intellectual independence that peer review requires.
• Undisclosed AI use: Failing to disclose any use of AI tools in manuscript preparation,
  regardless of extent, constitutes a breach of transparency obligations.

6.5 Disclosure Requirements

Authors must include a dedicated AI Use Disclosure Statement in their submitted manuscript,
positioned immediately before the References section. This statement must specify which tools
were used, for what purpose, and at which stage of manuscript preparation. If no AI tools were
used, authors must include an explicit statement to that effect.

Example disclosure (use): "The authors used ChatGPT (OpenAI, GPT-4, accessed March 2025)
to improve the readability of selected paragraphs in the methods section. All content was
subsequently reviewed, edited, and approved by the authors, who take full responsibility for the
accuracy and integrity of the published work."

Example disclosure (no use): "The authors declare that no generative AI tools or large
language models were used in any aspect of the preparation of this manuscript."

Failure to include an AI Use Disclosure Statement will result in the manuscript being returned to
authors prior to peer review.

6.6 Editorial Screening for AI Misuse

EJBESS employs AI content detection tools as part of its pre-review integrity screening process.
While the editorial team recognizes that no detection tool is infallible, unusually high AI-
detection scores — particularly when combined with other indicators such as unverifiable
citations, atypical writing consistency, or absence of expected domain-specific nuance — will
trigger a request for clarification from the authors. Persistent or deliberate non-disclosure of
substantive AI use will be escalated to the misconduct handling process described in Section 5.

6.7 Reviewer Obligations Regarding AI

Reviewers must not input any portion of a manuscript under review into a generative AI tool for
any purpose whatsoever. This constitutes a breach of confidentiality and may expose the
manuscript to unauthorized disclosure. Reviewers who are uncertain whether a specific tool
constitutes a generative AI system within the meaning of this policy should contact the editorial
office for clarification before proceeding.

6.8 Evolving Standards

EJBESS acknowledges that norms and best practices around generative AI in scholarly
publishing are evolving rapidly. This policy will be reviewed and updated at least annually, in
alignment with guidance issued by COPE, DOAJ, and the broader academic publishing
community. Authors and reviewers are encouraged to consult the most current version of this
policy on the EJBESS website before submission.