Journal of Human-AI Futures (JOHAF) is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, independent, responsible, and academically rigorous editorial process. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological or analytical quality, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope, and contribution to understanding the relationships between humans, artificial intelligence, institutions, and society.
Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial, financial, institutional, political, technological, or personal interests.
The publisher does not determine the acceptance or rejection of individual manuscripts. Editors assess submissions according to scholarly quality, originality, ethical compliance, methodological rigor, analytical contribution, and relevance to JOHAF.
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening before peer review. The editorial team evaluates whether the manuscript is consistent with the journal's Focus and Scope and whether it meets minimum scholarly, ethical, and presentation standards.
Initial screening may consider:
Purely technical AI manuscripts that do not demonstrate a substantive contribution to humans, society, governance, institutions, responsible AI, or human–AI systems may be declined without external review.
JOHAF applies a double-anonymous peer review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process.
Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject area.
Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, confidential, and academically independent evaluations.
Peer-review reports inform editorial decisions but do not automatically determine the final outcome. The responsible editor considers reviewer recommendations together with the manuscript's overall scholarly merit.
Editorial decisions may include:
Acceptance depends on the quality of the final revised manuscript and does not result automatically from completion of a review round.
Authors, editors, and reviewers must disclose financial, professional, institutional, commercial, technological, personal, or other relationships that could reasonably influence or appear to influence the research, peer review, or editorial process.
Editors should not handle manuscripts where a relevant conflict exists. Responsibility should be transferred to another qualified editor whenever editorial independence may be compromised.
JOHAF supports internationally recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing and publication-ethics practices informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate publication, manipulated peer review, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, deceptive data presentation, or intentional misrepresentation of AI-generated or human-generated material is not acceptable.
Allegations of misconduct will be considered objectively, confidentially, and proportionately based on the available evidence.
Artificial intelligence systems, generative AI tools, large language models, or autonomous software agents cannot be listed as authors because they cannot assume responsibility for scholarly content, originality, ethical compliance, or accountability.
Authors remain fully responsible for all submitted material, including text, analysis, code, figures, interpretations, references, and data generated or assisted by AI systems.
Substantive use of generative AI in manuscript preparation, coding, analysis, image generation, translation, data interpretation, literature synthesis, or other research activities should be transparently disclosed where relevant.
Editors and reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished research data, reviewer reports, or editorial correspondence to publicly accessible AI systems where confidentiality, privacy, intellectual property, or data security cannot be assured.
Research involving artificial intelligence systems should provide sufficient methodological transparency to allow readers to understand and critically evaluate the study.
Where relevant, authors should describe the AI model or system used, data sources, model version, experimental conditions, evaluation procedures, human participants or annotators, limitations, and potential sources of bias.
Authors should distinguish clearly between human-generated, AI-generated, and AI-assisted outputs when this distinction is material to the interpretation or reproducibility of the research.
Claims regarding accuracy, fairness, reliability, explainability, safety, social impact, or human performance should be supported by appropriate evidence and should not exceed what the study demonstrates.
Manuscripts may be screened using similarity-detection software. Similarity reports are interpreted contextually and are not judged solely on the basis of a numerical percentage.
Unattributed copying, inappropriate paraphrasing, duplicate publication, substantial reuse of previously published work, or presentation of generated material as original scholarly work may result in rejection or appropriate post-publication action.
Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe that a significant factual, methodological, procedural, or ethical issue affected an editorial decision.
Appeals should identify the specific issue being challenged and provide a clear scholarly justification.
Complaints regarding editorial conduct, peer review, conflicts of interest, publication ethics, or published material will be evaluated objectively by an appropriate journal representative.
JOHAF is committed to preserving the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.
Corrections may be issued when errors affect the accuracy, attribution, interpretation, or completeness of a published article without invalidating its main findings.
Retractions may be considered when findings are unreliable because of major error, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate publication, unethical research, manipulated data, undisclosed generation of material, or other serious integrity concerns.
An Expression of Concern may be issued when substantial concerns exist but sufficient information for a definitive editorial action is not yet available.
