Policy

 Journal of Business & Economics (JBE) Policy Document

Journal of Business & Economics (JBE) will publish research that has a strong theoretical and empirical contribution. It will publish theoretical as well as issue-oriented research in broadly defined areas of business management and economics. The journal will publish two issues (January-June and July-December) in a calendar year. The published articles will be intended to provide an enriched resource to local, regional, and international readership. The primary ambition of JBE is to bridge academia and practitioners throughout the local and internal business environment. In a larger canvas, JBE aspires to build a platform for informed debate on current uses of third-world economic competitiveness, efficiency, and sustainable development. JBE will cover the following areas under the domain of Business, Management, and Economics:

International Business and Marketing, Leadership and Corporate Governance, Entrepreneurship and Business Development, Operations and Supply Chain Management, Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior, Accounting, Finance and Economics.

The JBE team will ensure to implement the following policies in their true spirit:

 

1. PEER REVIEW POLICY

Peer Review Process

Being an HEC recognized/accredited journal, JBE follows the peer review guidelines of HEC in true letter and spirit to meet the requirements of annual funding. All papers submitted to JBE undergo a rigorous internal and external review by experts in the relevant area of interest.

Desk Review

Each paper goes through an internal review by a relevant editorial board member to determine whether it is properly formatted, within the scope of JBE, and follows the publication ethics. The board member would also consider whether basic protocols of research have been followed in research design/analysis and contribution to the literature. Papers that do not meet the basic requirements are not sent out for external review, and the authors are generally informed within 1 to 2 weeks.

External Review

JBE follows a double-blind review process after a paper is screened through the desk review. Authors are requested not to include their personal information in the text of the paper. They are further advised not to post their papers on any website to prevent their identity from being revealed to the potential reviewers. While reviewers are also expected to refuse, if they come to know about the identification of the author(s) of a paper referred to them for peer review.

External reviewers (1-2) generally comment on and suggest on originality, quality of presentation, research design, data/results/conclusions, usefulness of the study and interest to the researchers’ community. During external review, if reviewers find that the research paper has major flaws that cannot be resolved through major revision, they can recommend declining the paper.

Suggesting Reviewers

Following the HEC guidelines in letter and spirit, authors submitting their research papers to JBE are not given the option to suggest potential reviewers to review their research papers. While authors may indicate those scholars (due to any real or perceived conflict of interest) who they feel are not suitable to serve as reviewers for their specific paper.

Criteria for Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected carefully based on the following criteria:

• Must hold a PhD degree or advanced professional qualification with extensive professional/academic experience, i.e., CPA, CFA, CMA, etc.
• Recognized expert in the field (having publications in reputable academic or professional research journals)
• Never coauthored a paper with author(s)
• Not affiliated with the institution of the author(s)
• Should have a good understanding of data analysis

Resources Available to Reviewers

Reviewers of JBE are reputable academic and professional researchers who have access to a wide range of research-related databases and other latest materials. If reviewers need further material to complete their review, it is also provided to them.

Publication Ethics (for reviewers)

All reviewers are encouraged to follow the HEC guidelines for reviewers to meet their responsibilities in relation to objectivity, promptness, conflict of interest, confidentiality, and reporting.

 

 

 

Steps in the Peer Review Process

The peer review process of JBE can be broadly described as:

No.	Step	Estimated Time
1	Submission of a paper	-
2	First desk review *	1-2 weeks
3	External review (1-2 reviewers)	5-6 weeks
4	Communication of review reports to authors for minor/major revision **	1 week
5	Submission of revised paper	4-8 weeks (depends on other commitments of authors)
6	Second internal review (to assess whether reviewers' suggestions have been incorporated satisfactorily) ***	1 week
7	Acceptance of the paper (on successful submission of revised paper)	1 week

* The paper is returned to the authors if it does not meet the basic criteria

** The paper is returned to the authors if external reviewers find that the research paper has such serious faults that cannot be resolved through major revision

*** Authors are requested to make further revision, if editors find that reviewers’ suggestions have not been incorporated satisfactorily

Note: Authors are requested to revise the paper carefully in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions to avoid unnecessary delay in the review process.

 

Resubmission of paper (after peer review)

Nearly every published paper goes through at least one revision. Authors should take a revision request as good news and an opportunity to learn and improve the quality of their research paper. They are directed to revise the paper carefully in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions to avoid needless interruption in the review process. Generally, a review report is provided in columnar form. The last column of the review report is the Authors’ action/response. This column is to be filled by the author(s) in detail, the way each review point is incorporated in the revised version of the paper (This is a compulsory part of the review process). Revised paper along with reply/response to the review report should be submitted within two months. The author (s) should be very careful regarding accuracy and completeness in accordance with the reviewers’ suggested points, to avoid further review and delay (further revision can be recommended if editors find that reviewers’ suggestions have not been incorporated satisfactorily).

Keeping in view the other academic/professional commitments, authors can request extra time if they feel that the revision needs more effort and time to improve the quality of the paper.

 

Appeal/Complaint Process

The editorial board of JBE is committed to providing quality editorial services to its contributors and believes in building and maintaining trust and respect for all contributors, readers, and practitioners. JBE believes in improving its services by responding to appeals and rectifying its mistakes against:

1. a) Objection to publications causing harm to any party
2. b) Infringing ethical boundaries in any manner and
3. c) Rejection of research paper

Authors/readers can submit their appeal directly to the chief editor at [email protected]. The appeal must provide detailed justification (harm, ethical issues, or response to editor/reviewer comments). The chief editor would look after the matter independently and forward it to an appropriate JBE editorial board member. Finally, the board member, after going through the complaint/justification, can finally recommend acceptance of the appeal, further review, or uphold the original decision (if any).

English Language Editing

It is the basic responsibility of authors to ensure that their research paper is free from spelling, typing, grammar, and syntax errors. Authors whose native language is not English must get their research paper edited by an English language expert.

 

2. PLAGIARISM POLICY

In accordance with the guidelines of the Higher Education Commission (HEC), Journal of Business and Economics (JBE) observes zero tolerance for plagiarism. JBE uses either Turnitin or iThenticate for all research papers submitted to detect possible plagiarism. If similarity is more than 19%, the paper is returned to the author(s) immediately. JBE follows HEC and COPE guidelines to make the determination of whether (or to what extent) plagiarism exists.

If plagiarism or other unethical practices are detected after the paper is published, the editorial board has the authority to correct or retract the paper under HEC’s plagiarism policy. All authors are responsible for their content individually and collectively. In case of serious plagiarism issues, the editorial board may decide to consult the authors' institutions.

Self-plagiarism: verbatim or substantial copying of the author’s own published work (or under consideration for publication at some other outlet) affecting the originality of the current submission is also not acceptable in any way.

 

3. PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

Journal of Business and Economics – JBE is a peer-reviewed HEC-recognized journal committed to promoting the highest ethical publication practices and to maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. It is not a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, but it follows COPE's Code of Conduct.

The following statement defines what is to be expected of the key participants in the publishing process: authors, reviewers, the editor, and the publisher.

Publication and authorship

The journal publishes exclusively unpublished papers.

By submitting a manuscript, the authors confirm that it is the result of their own original work for which they accept scientific and ethical responsibility (especially with respect to plagiarism, forgery of data, multiple reporting or publishing identical research results, abuse of authorship, or any other form of academic misconduct).

Additionally, by submitting a manuscript, the authors confirm that the same manuscript has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere.

Publication is free of charge for authors submitting the articles.

Authors’ responsibilities

Authors who submit articles to JBE affirm that the manuscript contents are original.

Authors’ submission also implies that the manuscript has not been published previously in any language, either fully or partly, and is not currently submitted for publication elsewhere. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

The authors’ submission implies that all data in the article are authentic. Authors should retain raw data related to their submitted paper and must provide it for editorial review upon request of the editor.

Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have influenced their research. If the authors have used the work and/or words of others, they need to ensure that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the research. All those who have made significant contributions to the paper should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

All authors should disclose any financial or other substantive conflict of interest in their manuscript that might be construed to influence its results or interpretation.

Authors of submitted articles are obliged to participate in the peer-review process.

If authors discover a significant mistake or inaccuracy in their published paper, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.

Responsibility for the reviewers

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. The reviewers should respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of the manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.

Reviewers should agree to review only manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess promptly. If a selected reviewer feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or within the proposed time-frame, he/she should notify the editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process.

The review of submitted manuscripts should be conducted objectively. The reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory, and from making defamatory or derogatory personal comments.

Reviewers should point out relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

Reviewers should not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage or to disadvantage or discredit others.

All reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors, or the research funders connected to the manuscript.

Reviewers should ensure that their review is based on the merits of the work and not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any personal, financial, or other conflicting considerations or by intellectual biases.

Reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript. Reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.

Editor’s responsibilities

The editor will ensure that all published papers and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers and that the peer-review process is fair, unbiased and timely. The editor preserves the anonymity of reviewers.

The editor has the responsibility to ensure that all information regarding manuscripts submitted to JBE remains confidential.

The editor ensures that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor, who may make use of appropriate means to examine the originality of the contents of the manuscript. After the manuscript passes this test, it is forwarded to two reviewers for double-blind peer review, and each of them will make a recommendation to publish the manuscript in its present form, to modify it, or to reject it.

The editor’s decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication are based only on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal.

The editor ensures that each received manuscript is evaluated according to its intellectual content without regard to the authors’ gender, race, religion, etc.

The editor cannot use unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted manuscript for his/her own research without prior written consent of the authors.

The editor is always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed. If mistakes are found in the article, the editor will promptly provide a retraction or corrections.

A new editor will not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.

The editor will act if he/she suspects misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to him/her. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.

Editor’s decisions will not be affected by the origin of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. The decisions to edit and publish a manuscript will not be determined by the policies of governments or other agencies outside of the journal itself.

Publishing ethics issues

The editorial board is responsible for monitoring publishing ethics/preventing publication malpractice.

The editor and the editorial board will ensure the integrity of the academic record.

Unethical behavior is unacceptable, and JBE does not tolerate plagiarism or fraudulent data.

The editor and the editorial board will ensure corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.

The relations of the editor with publishers and owners will be based on the principle of editorial independence.

The editor makes decisions on which articles to publish based on their quality and suitability for the journal, without interference from the journal publisher, as well as according to intellectual and ethical standards instead of immediate financial or political gain.

The publisher will provide reasonable practical support to the editor so that he/she can follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journals.

Following the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors, in cases of suspected or alleged research or publication misconduct, the editor will first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If he/she is not satisfied with the response, he/she will ask the relevant employers or institutions to investigate. The editor will make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted.

The editor and editorial board of JBE will:

• Inform institutions if they suspect misconduct by their researchers and provide evidence to support these concerns;
• Cooperate with investigations and respond to institutions’ questions about misconduct allegations;
• Be prepared to issue retractions or corrections when provided with findings of misconduct arising from investigations;
• Have policies for responding to institutions and other organizations that investigate cases of research misconduct.
• Investigations into possible misconduct will generally be undertaken by the researcher’s institution and not by editors. If a journal has published unreliable or fraudulent information, the editor has a duty to correct or retract it.
• Therefore, even when faced with apparently strong evidence of misconduct (e.g., plagiarism or inappropriate image manipulation) and a clear need to correct the published record, the editor will liaise with institutions and ensure they are informed.
• The editor follows the COPE guidelines on retractions.

The editor will consider retracting a publication if:

• There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error);
• The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication);
• It constitutes plagiarism;
• It reports unethical research.
• The retraction will be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.

 

Authors Complaint Procedure

The complaint regarding editorial decisions, publication ethics, or conflict of interest should be made directly to the Chief Editor. The complaint should be handled in the first instance by the Chief Editor. The Chief Editor may form an inquiry committee consisting of members of the editorial board. Upon the recommendations of the inquiry committee, the Chief Editor may take a reasonable decision to consider the complaint or reject it.

4. ALLEGATION POLICY

Journal of Business & Economics’ policy for managing allegations of research misconduct is based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), available at https://publicationethics.org/misconduct.

Authors are required to read the journal’s author instructions and ethical policies carefully and to adhere to the terms before submission. While authors are given the option to suggest potential reviewers for the peer-review process, the qualifications and potential conflicts of interest of all reviewers will be carefully checked before they are invited to review.

Report of research misconduct may be related to a published article or a manuscript under the peer-review process. The procedure for the application and management of complaints of author misconduct should proceed with sensitivity, tact, in confidence, and in the following manner:

• The editorial office of the journal receives a complaint that an article submitted to or published in the journal is suspected of containing research misconduct.
• The complainant needs to clearly indicate the specific manner and detail of misconduct; for example, in a case of plagiarism, the plagiarized paragraph should be clearly highlighted, and the original and suspected articles should be clearly referred to.
• The editorial office will conduct an investigation, during which time the editor of the journal and the corresponding author(s) of the suspected article will be in contact.
• The corresponding author(s) will be asked to explain with factual statements and any available evidence.

If the author(s) of the suspected article accept the misconduct complaint, the editorial office will take the following actions depending on the situation:

• In the case of nonresponse in the stipulated time or an unsatisfactory explanation, the article may be permanently retracted or rejected. Before making a decision, confirmation will be sought from the experts of the relevant institution or other authorities as required.
• The complainant will be informed of the outcome once the issue is resolved.
• The complaint case will thereupon be considered concluded.

 

5. COMPLAINTS POLICY

This procedure applies to complaints about the policies, procedures, or actions of the JBE’s editorial staff. We welcome complaints as they provide an opportunity and a spur for improvement, and we aim to respond quickly, courteously, and constructively.  Please write your complaint with journal title, vol. no., issue no., paper ID, paper title, and page no.

Our definition of a complaint is as follows:

• The complainant defines his or her expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint.
• We infer that the complainant is not simply disagreeing with a decision we have made or something we have published (which happens every day), but thinks that there has been a failure of process.
• The complaint must be about something that is within the responsibility of the Journal’s content or process.

Journal of Business & Economics (JBE) is aware of the complaints stated below:

• Authorship complaints
• Plagiarism complaints
• Multiple, duplicate, concurrent publication/Simultaneous submission
• Research results misappropriation
• Allegations of research errors and fraud
• Research standards violations
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
• Reviewer bias or competitive harmful acts by reviewers

Policy for Handling Complaints

If the Journal receives a complaint that any contribution to the Journal infringes intellectual property rights or contains material inaccuracies, libelous materials, or otherwise unlawful materials, the Journal will investigate the complaint. Investigation may include a request that the parties involved substantiate their claims. The Journal will make a good-faith determination whether to remove the allegedly wrongful material. A decision not to remove material should represent the Journal's belief that the complaint is without sufficient foundation, or if well‐founded, that a legal defense or exemption may apply, such as the truthfulness of a statement in the case of libel. The journal should document its investigation and decision. We strive to ensure that JBE is of the highest quality and is free from errors. However, we accept that occasionally mistakes might happen.

Editorial Complaints Policy

The Chief Editor and staff of Journal of Business & Economics (JBE) will make every endeavor to put matters right as soon as possible in the most appropriate way, offering right of reply where necessary. As far as possible, we will investigate complaints in a blame-free manner, looking to see how systems can be improved to prevent mistakes from occurring.

Guiding Principles

Our general approach to complaints is that they are a rare but inevitable part of a process that involves putting together complex material at great speed. We accept that we make mistakes and try to treat all complaints with urgency, however small. We believe that timely solutions can prevent problems from escalating. All substantial errors and complaints are referred to senior executives within the editorial staff as a matter of course.

The procedure outlined below aims to be fair to those making complaints and those complained about. All complaints will be acknowledged (within three working days if by email). If possible, a definitive response will be made within two weeks. If this is not possible, an interim response will be given within two weeks. Interim responses will be provided until the complaint is finally resolved. If the complainant remains unhappy, complaints should be escalated to the editor, whose decision is final.

How to Register a Complaint

Complaints about editorial content should be made as soon as possible after publication, preferably in writing by email to: [email protected].

6. CONFLICT POLICY

Journal of Business & Economics (JBE) defines a conflict of interest as arising from any relationship authors, reviewers, or editors have that interferes with the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of a manuscript.

Conflicts of interest can be financial or non-financial, professional or personal, and can arise in relation to an organization or an individual. JBE requires full disclosure by authors of all conflicts of interest relevant to a submitted manuscript, which is integral to the transparent reporting of research.

Reviewers

To ensure that the review process is free of conflicts:

• Editors should select a guest editor when there is a conflict of interest with respect to an author.
• Editors should ensure that reviewers are free of conflict of interest with respect to an author.
• Reviewers should contact the editorial office to declare any potential conflicts of interest in advance of refereeing an article (e.g., being a co-worker or collaborator with one of the authors, or being in a position that precludes giving an objective opinion of the work).
• Minor conflicts do not disqualify a reviewer from reporting on an article but will be taken into account when considering the referees’ recommendations.

Authors

All authors and co-authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest when submitting their article (e.g., employment, consulting fees, research contracts, stock ownership, patent licenses, honoraria, advisory affiliations, etc.). If the article is subsequently accepted for publication, this information should be included in the end section.

 

Editors

Editors should not make any editorial decisions or get involved in the editorial process if they have any COI (financial or otherwise) for a submitted manuscript. If editors have any such COI with respect to the authors or their work, the editors should remove themselves from the decision-making process.

An editor may have a COI if a manuscript is submitted from their own academic department or from their institution in such situations; they should have explicit policies for managing it.

When editors submit their own work to their journal, a colleague in the editorial office should manage the manuscript, and the editor/author should recuse himself or herself from discussion and decisions about it.

 All financial and non-financial competing interests must be declared by authors in the section given in the copyright form. In cases where no conflicts of interest exist, authors should state that “The author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article”. Otherwise, they should mention any conflict of interest at the end of the manuscript.

 

7. OPEN ACCESS

JBE is an open-access, peer-reviewed journal. Each article accepted by peer review is made freely available online immediately upon publication. Publication costs of the journal are covered by the host institution (Air University, Islamabad) and funds granted by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) Pakistan. The journal allows readers to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles and allows readers to use them for any other lawful purpose. The journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Under the license terms, you are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format

Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

 

8. AI POLICY

The guidelines below are a verbatim copy of the HEC AI policy:

 

Generative AI tools can be employed at different stages of the research process or processes relating to research. Some examples are:

1. Research Design: Generate ideas for research questions or projects.
2. Writing Up: Improve writing quality, language translation, reformat references and citations

iii. Quality Check (language, content, flow of document, etc.)

 

1. Administration

Employing Generative AI Tools to improve the efficiency of administrative processes. Some examples are:

1. Information translation for regional/international students
2. Finding resources and other information

 

7. Applicability of the Framework

The Framework applies to students, employees of universities/organizations, faculty members, researchers, and staff of all Universities and DAIs of Pakistan, whether operating in the private or public sector. The Framework applies to all degree programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels. In this context, A “Student” is a person who, on the date of the submission of his/her paper/work, is a registered student at any university, DAI, constituent, or affiliated college, recognized by the Higher Education Commission (HEC).

A “Faculty Member/Researcher” includes a faculty member or equivalent at a University/Organization, constituent or affiliated college, or a researcher of an organization or any such other person as may be declared so by regulations. A Faculty Member/Researcher may be working on a regular, contractual, visiting, ad hoc, or adjunct basis, or engaged online.  All such scholars/supervisors/stakeholders who are researching in HEIs/DAIs and have placed their CVs or any other publication(s) on the institutional website, and are applying for any benefit, based on their published or presented works, which later prove to be plagiarized, will be held accountable/liable and penalized, as per the prescribed rules.

8. 8. Responsibilities of HEI’s and Organizations

Promoting responsible GenAI tool use in HEIs involves a combination of proactive measures, policy implementation, and educational initiatives.

1. Ethical Guidelines: Instructors/Supervisors should develop clear and comprehensive guidelines specifically addressing the use of GenAI Tools within the academic setting – how and when these tools can be used and when they cannot. These guidelines should outline acceptable use, potential risks, and consequences of misuse and must be referred/mentioned clearly in the course outlines and project proposal documents.
2. Continuous Ethical Review: Create a standing committee or ethical review board to periodically assess GenAI tool use and address emerging ethical concerns related to AI technologies. Continuously assess the research manuscripts by field specialists for unethical use of GenAI Tools in light of relevant policies at the national level

iii. Connecting GenAI Tools Use to Learning Outcomes: At the outset of the course, teachers/supervisors should connect the use of AI Generative Tools to Outcome-Based Education (OBE), mapping it with learning outcomes (Program Learning Outcomes – PLOs & Course Learning Outcomes - CLOs). This helps students to understand how these tools can support their learning and what the guidelines/expectations are for them.

1. Transparent Attribution: Encourage students and researchers to transparently attribute the use of AI-generated content in their work, ensuring proper acknowledgment and citation.
2. Faculty and Staff Capacity Building: Arrange awareness seminars and workshops for faculty, staff, and administrators on the responsible and ethical use of GenAI Tools. Educators should understand the capabilities and limitations of GenAI Tools and be equipped to guide students appropriately. Emphasize the importance of academic honesty and integrity through these orientation programs, research seminars, and ongoing awareness campaigns.

 

Policy Reference: ANTI-PLAGIARISM POLICY by HEC

1. Incorporate AI Ethics into Curriculum: Integrate discussions on AI ethics, bias, and responsible AI use into relevant courses across various disciplines, including computer science, engineering, management and social sciences.

vii. Critical Thinking and Information Literacy: Promote critical thinking skills among students and researchers to help them critically evaluate AI-generated content and distinguish it from credible, validated sources.

viii. Originality and Creativity: Encourage and celebrate originality and creativity in student work, discouraging the overreliance on AI-generated content for assignments and research.

1. Collaboration with AI Developers: Establish collaborations with AI developers and researchers to explore the ethical implications of AI and work together on responsible AI initiatives.
2. Support Research on AI Ethics: Support and conduct research on AI ethics and bias, aiming to develop best practices and guidelines for responsible AI use in academia.
3. Peer Support & Collaborative Efforts: Faculty and staff share their experiences and best practices for teaching & ways to use Generative AI Tools in learning, research & administration to increase skill level and bring efficiency to the institution. Foster Collaboration with other educational institutions, industry partners, public sector entities, and AI ethics organizations to share knowledge and best practices in promoting responsible and ethical use of AI, as well as in line with other applicable policies.

xii. Adapting Innovative Assessment Methods and Learning Tools: The faculty/advisors are encouraged to adapt global best practices for micro-management of the content at the course/research level. Instructors should provide guidelines regarding acceptable use of Generative AI Tools referred/mentioned clearly in the course outlines and project proposal documents, ensuring transparency & ethical considerations. Moreover, a declaration, if asked for by the instructor, can also be added. Innovative assessment methods will be developed and put into practice to complement the integration of Generative AI Tools into course learning and evaluation. In addition to the above, HEIs may ensure compliance with the following agenda through developing Departmental Standing Committees (DSC) to practice ethical use of GenAI.

1. Transparency

Transparency in the context of Generative AI Tools refers to the open communication and disclosure of the use of AI technologies within educational institutions. Educational institutes must provide detailed information about the types of generative AI systems in use, their applications, and the data sources utilized. This information should be easily accessible to students, faculty, and other relevant stakeholders.

1. Informed Consent Informed consent involves individuals being fully informed about the potential implications of the use of Generative AI Tools and voluntarily agreeing to their application. Educational institutes must establish clear processes to obtain informed consent from students and faculty before implementing Generative AI Tools in educational processes. This includes explaining the purposes, potential impacts, and any risks associated with AI applications in the context of higher education.
2. Fairness and Bias Mitigation

Fairness and bias mitigation entail the active identification and mitigation of biases in Generative AI Tools to ensure equitable outcomes. Regular audits of generative AI Tools should be conducted to identify and rectify biases. Educational institutes must actively engage in research and development to minimize bias in areas such as grading, student assessment, and content generation.

1. Data Privacy

Data privacy involves safeguarding the personal information of students and faculty from unauthorized access, use, and disclosure. Educational institutes must adhere to the applicable data protection regulations and establish robust security measures to protect student and faculty data. Any data used in Generative AI Tools/applications should be anonymized and treated with the utmost confidentiality.

1. Accessibility

Accessibility refers to the design and implementation of Generative AI Tools to ensure usability by individuals with diverse abilities and needs. Generative AI systems should be designed with accessibility features, considering the needs of individuals with disabilities, language differences, and other learning requirements. Educational institutes should actively seek feedback from diverse user groups to enhance accessibility.

1. Explainability

Explainability involves the capacity of Generative AI Tools/systems to provide understandable explanations for their decisions and actions. Educational institutes should prioritize the use of generative AI systems that offer transparent decision-making processes. This includes providing explanations for AI-generated content and decisions, especially when they have a significant impact on educational experiences.