Page 113 - Read online

Author Instructions

7.3 AI Use in Peer Review
Confidentiality requirements:
• Reviewers must not upload manuscripts/materials to AI platforms, as this:
1. Violates OAE’s confidentiality policies
2. Risks intellectual property infringement
3. May compromise personal data in identifiable content

Review integrity standards:

• Peer review must remain human-driven – AI tools cannot replace critical scholarly judgment.
• Reviewers must not use AI for manuscript evaluation due to risks of:
1. Inaccurate/incomplete assessments
2. Algorithmic bias
Declaration requirement: Reviewers retain full accountability for their reports, if any aspect of the manuscript’s
evaluation was supported in any way by an AI tool, reviewers must explicitly disclose it in their report.
OAE will periodically reassess this policy to align with technological advancements and academic standards.

8. Conflict of Interests
OAE journals require authors to declare any possible financial and/or non-financial conflicts of interest at the end of
their manuscript and in the cover letter, as well as confirm this point when submitting their manuscript in the submission
system. If no conflicts of interest exist, authors need to state “The authors declare no conflicts of interest”. We also
recognize that some authors may be bound by confidentiality agreements, in which cases authors need to sate “The
authors declare that they are bound by confidentiality agreements that prevent them from disclosing their competing
interests in this work”.

9. Editorial Process
9.1. Initial check
9.1.1. Initial manuscript check
New submissions are initially checked by the Managing Editor from the perspectives of originality, suitability, structure
and formatting, conflicts of interest, background of authors, etc. Poorly-prepared manuscripts may be rejected at this
stage. If your manuscript does not meet one or more of these requirements, we will return it for further revisions. The
Academic Editor, i.e., the Editor-in-Chief in the case of regular submissions, the Guest Editor in the case of Special Issue
submissions, or an Editorial Board member in the case of a conflict of interest, will be notified of the submission and
invited to check and recommend reviewers.

9.1.2. Publishing ethics
All manuscripts submitted to Carbon Footprints are screened using iThenticate powered by CrossCheck to identify
any plagiarized content. Your study must also meet all ethical requirements as outlined in our Editorial Policies. If the
manuscript does not pass any of these checks, we may return it to you for further revisions or decline to consider your study
for publication.
9.2. Editorial assessment
Once your manuscript has passed the initial check, our editorial team will assign it to an Academic Editor, i.e., the
Editor-in-Chief in the case of regular submissions, the Guest Editor in the case of Special Issue submissions, or an
Editorial Board member in case of a conflict of interest, who will be notified of the submission and invited to check and
recommend reviewers. The Academic Editors may reject manuscripts that they deem highly unlikely to pass peer review
without further consultation.

9.3. Process
Carbon Footprints operates a single-blind review process. The technical quality of the research described in the
manuscript is assessed by a minimum of three independent expert reviewers. The Academic Editor is responsible for the
final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of the manuscript. For controversial manuscripts, the Editor-in-Chief is

Carbon Footprints XIII