1) Core Principles

• Integrity & Originality. Submissions must be original, not under review elsewhere, and should state clearly the question, approach, evidence, and limits. We run similarity checks and act on plagiarism, redundant publication, data fabrication/falsification, and figure manipulation.
• Transparent Methods. Methods should allow a trained reader to retrace logic and, where appropriate, reproduce numbers. If identification hinges on assumptions (e.g., timing, exclusion restrictions), authors must state and defend them.
• Authorship & Acknowledgment. Authorship is limited to those who materially shaped the study and accept responsibility for it. Changes to author lists require written consent of all affected parties and editorial approval.
• Conflicts of Interest & Funding. Disclose consulting, grants, equity, advisory roles, audit/assurance engagements, or other ties that a reasonable reader should know. Name funders and describe the sponsor’s role, if any, in design, analysis, interpretation, writing, or submission.

2) Data, Code, and Reproducibility

Preferred practice: deposit replication packages (e.g., Stata do-files, R scripts, Python notebooks, MATLAB code) with read-me and variable definitions. Where law, licenses, NDAs, or ethics prevent sharing, explain constraints and provide the next best thing (metadata, codebooks, sampling frames, and enough detail for validation). Use persistent identifiers where possible and make robustness checks traceable rather than asserted.

3) Human Participants, Sensitive Firms, and Non-Public Information

• Approvals & Consent. Obtain ethics approvals where required (e.g., surveys/experiments) and describe consent and privacy safeguards.
• Lawful Access. Authors must confirm lawful access to confidential/proprietary data and respect limits on disclosure.
• Market Sensitivity. Do not publish or trade on material non-public information. Represent governing standards (e.g., IFRS/local GAAP) faithfully when interpreting financial reporting.

4) Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence

AI systems are not authors. If language or coding tools assisted with editing, translation, summarization, figure drafting, or checks, state the tool and version and the task performed. Human authors remain fully responsible for accuracy, inferences, originality of wording, and authenticity of data and citations. Undisclosed text generation, fabricated references, or AI-assisted manipulation of data/images is misconduct.

5) Peer Review and Editorial Independence

• Model. EFE uses double-blind peer review; identities of authors and reviewers are protected and submissions are confidential.
• Reviewer Conduct. Reports should be evidence-based, candid, and respectful. Reviewers must decline assignments when conflicted or unable to deliver a careful, timely review.
• Editorial Conduct. Editors recuse themselves in the presence of conflicts. Editorial communication aims to be transparent in reasoning, fair in tone, and timely.

6) Misconduct, Corrections, and the Scholarly Record

When concerns arise, EFE follows relevant COPE flowcharts. Editors may request underlying data, scripts, figure originals, approvals, or access-justification documents. Outcomes range from clarification and correction to rejection or retraction; expressions of concern may be issued when reliability is in question pending inquiry. All post-publication notices are permanently linked to the article.

7) Preprints, Licensing, Archiving, and Third-Party Materials

• Preprints. Posting on reputable servers is acceptable with disclosure at submission and record update upon acceptance.
• Licensing. Articles are published under CC BY 4.0; follow the journal’s self-archiving policy. Authors are responsible for permissions to reuse third-party content (figures, tables, instruments, maps, trademarks) and for accurate attribution.

8) Inclusivity and the Craft of Clear Writing

Good economics is precise and mindful of audiences beyond a narrow subfield. Write so a trained reader in an adjacent area can follow; avoid unnecessary jargon; and state uncertainties and distributional implications with care, especially where findings could affect households, firms, creditors, investors, supervisors, or public finances.

9) Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe a decision overlooked key evidence may file a reasoned appeal; a different editor will review it. Complaints about process or conduct are examined impartially and confidentially, and outcomes are communicated in writing within a reasonable timeframe.

10) Contact

Questions about this policy or reports of suspected misconduct may be addressed to the Editorial Ethics Office of Economy and Finance Enthusiastic (EFE). Communications are handled discreetly and with the seriousness due to the scholarly record.