Artificial Intelligence (AI) is now part of our daily activities and has entered our scholarly work (Arora et al., 2025). Although it brings advantages to the way we conduct research from assisting in idea generation and creating content to synthesizing literature and conducting analyses, it also comes with concerns ranging from hallucinating and replicating bias (e.g., Anis & French, 2023) to plagiarizing others’ work without attribution. It is therefore essential to think, reflect, and protect research integrity.
While BAS follows Sage policy on the use of AI in research, which emphasizes the importance of rigorous and transparent research, with this blog post, we want to provide an interim guidance, building from current practices across leading journals, consistent with the Committee on Publication Ethics (C.O.P.E) position statement on AI, while we are working on a more developed policy.
Although there is some variance across the policies of academic journals, some common positions are emerging: no AI authorship, a ban on using AI for reviewing and editorial decisioning, and full disclosure of AI use by authors. We want to emphasize the importance and centrality of human judgement, human accountability, and transparency in and through any scholar work and review process. In addition, manuscripts are privileged material that should be protected from uploads and disclosures.
With these points in mind, we have put together our intermediary position on the use of AI by authors, reviewers and the editorial team.
Authors
Authors may use AI apps (e.g., ChatGPT, PaperPal and Claude) to assist in the writing process and as part of the method IF AND ONLY IF authors provide a full disclosure in the manuscript of where and how it has been used and what model was used. It must be visible to reviewers, editors and the readers. Authors are ultimately responsible for ensuring the reliability, accuracy, and appropriateness of the information provided in the manuscript and the research process. Editors are the ultimate judge of what is acceptable or not acceptable. Editors may reject the paper if they believe that the AI has compromised the integrity of the submitted research product at any stage.
In the writing process: Authors may use AI for ideation, for example, through brainstorming with AI to develop or structure initial ideas and writing support, such as via using AI for editing purposes and refining the language used. However, they should not rely solely on AI for idea generation. The use of AI to generate images, figures, graphs, or other visuals is not permitted.
Data collection and analysis: Authors may use AI as a starting point for the literature review, but it cannot be the sole basis for the review. They should still conduct manual checks and ensure the accuracy of the product. Similarly, they may use AI to support and assist data collection and analysis, but human oversight and responsibility must be maintained.
AI is not, and cannot be, an author. We expect all authors to clearly explain their use of AI, supervise AI-related tasks, and confirm the accuracy of the work they submit to BAS. Any use of AI must be transparently disclosed (in the cover letter, acknowledgement and, if relevant, in the method section). It includes explaining how and where AI was used and discussing the limitations and biases involved. Further, BAS demands that authors verify AI-generated content and take responsibility for any mistakes.
Reviewers and editors
Human judgment and assessment are essential in peer review process. It is also important to maintain confidentiality and protect the intellectual property of authors. Therefore, reviewers and editors are required:
not to use AI to review, evaluate, generate reports or make decisions on manuscripts.
not to upload manuscripts or peer review reports to AI tools
However, they may use AI tools such as Grammarly or ChatGPT for refining the language used in their reviews and decision letters, providing they undertake utmost care to ensure confidentiality (e.g. not inserting review sections with manuscript title or summaries).
Moreover, as we encourage authors to disclose any use of AI, manuscripts that include such disclosures should neither be advantaged nor disadvantaged on that basis. Editorial and peer review judgments must rest on the scholarly rigor and validity of arguments/claims.
Overall, BAS expects human supervision and judgment in the use of AI for any research-related tasks. AI can only be used to support and not supplant human judgment. No author, reviewer or editor may outsource human judgment to AI. They will retain full responsibility for their use of AI in any research activity.
References
Anis, S., & French, J. A. (2023). Efficient, Explicatory, and Equitable: Why Qualitative Researchers Should Embrace AI, but Cautiously. Business & Society, 62(6), 1139–1144. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503231163286
Arora, P., Bapuji, H., Higgins, C., Louche, C., & Panwar, R. (2025). Desk Rejection: When the Musical Notes Just Don’t Come Together. Business & Society, 00076503251365795. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503251365795
This is our intermediary position on the use of AI by authors, reviewers and the editorial team. We want to emphasize the importance and centrality of human judgement, human accountability, and transparency in and through any scholar work and review process. In addition, manuscripts are privileged material that should be protected from uploads and disclosures.
Does allowing China’s privately-owned firms to buy equity in large state-owned enterprises have the potential to improve their CSR performance? It does when these firms have restricted access to financial and other resources, the real barriers requiring effective government interventions.
By: Bin Li, Lei Xu, Ron P. McIver, Xin Liu, & Ailing Pan
Join our mailing list
Would you like to receive e-alerts whenever there is a new post at the blog? Sign up here!
Use of AI at Business & Society: Interim guidance for authors, reviewers, and editors
Share This Post
Céline Louche, University of Waikato
Lea Stadtler, Grenoble Ecole de Management
Naomi Gardberg, Baruch College
Punit Arora, The City University of New York
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is now part of our daily activities and has entered our scholarly work (Arora et al., 2025). Although it brings advantages to the way we conduct research from assisting in idea generation and creating content to synthesizing literature and conducting analyses, it also comes with concerns ranging from hallucinating and replicating bias (e.g., Anis & French, 2023) to plagiarizing others’ work without attribution. It is therefore essential to think, reflect, and protect research integrity.
While BAS follows Sage policy on the use of AI in research, which emphasizes the importance of rigorous and transparent research, with this blog post, we want to provide an interim guidance, building from current practices across leading journals, consistent with the Committee on Publication Ethics (C.O.P.E) position statement on AI, while we are working on a more developed policy.
Although there is some variance across the policies of academic journals, some common positions are emerging: no AI authorship, a ban on using AI for reviewing and editorial decisioning, and full disclosure of AI use by authors. We want to emphasize the importance and centrality of human judgement, human accountability, and transparency in and through any scholar work and review process. In addition, manuscripts are privileged material that should be protected from uploads and disclosures.
With these points in mind, we have put together our intermediary position on the use of AI by authors, reviewers and the editorial team.
Authors
Authors may use AI apps (e.g., ChatGPT, PaperPal and Claude) to assist in the writing process and as part of the method IF AND ONLY IF authors provide a full disclosure in the manuscript of where and how it has been used and what model was used. It must be visible to reviewers, editors and the readers. Authors are ultimately responsible for ensuring the reliability, accuracy, and appropriateness of the information provided in the manuscript and the research process. Editors are the ultimate judge of what is acceptable or not acceptable. Editors may reject the paper if they believe that the AI has compromised the integrity of the submitted research product at any stage.
In the writing process: Authors may use AI for ideation, for example, through brainstorming with AI to develop or structure initial ideas and writing support, such as via using AI for editing purposes and refining the language used. However, they should not rely solely on AI for idea generation. The use of AI to generate images, figures, graphs, or other visuals is not permitted.
Data collection and analysis: Authors may use AI as a starting point for the literature review, but it cannot be the sole basis for the review. They should still conduct manual checks and ensure the accuracy of the product. Similarly, they may use AI to support and assist data collection and analysis, but human oversight and responsibility must be maintained.
AI is not, and cannot be, an author. We expect all authors to clearly explain their use of AI, supervise AI-related tasks, and confirm the accuracy of the work they submit to BAS. Any use of AI must be transparently disclosed (in the cover letter, acknowledgement and, if relevant, in the method section). It includes explaining how and where AI was used and discussing the limitations and biases involved. Further, BAS demands that authors verify AI-generated content and take responsibility for any mistakes.
Reviewers and editors
Human judgment and assessment are essential in peer review process. It is also important to maintain confidentiality and protect the intellectual property of authors. Therefore, reviewers and editors are required:
However, they may use AI tools such as Grammarly or ChatGPT for refining the language used in their reviews and decision letters, providing they undertake utmost care to ensure confidentiality (e.g. not inserting review sections with manuscript title or summaries).
Moreover, as we encourage authors to disclose any use of AI, manuscripts that include such disclosures should neither be advantaged nor disadvantaged on that basis. Editorial and peer review judgments must rest on the scholarly rigor and validity of arguments/claims.
Overall, BAS expects human supervision and judgment in the use of AI for any research-related tasks. AI can only be used to support and not supplant human judgment. No author, reviewer or editor may outsource human judgment to AI. They will retain full responsibility for their use of AI in any research activity.
References
Anis, S., & French, J. A. (2023). Efficient, Explicatory, and Equitable: Why Qualitative Researchers Should Embrace AI, but Cautiously. Business & Society, 62(6), 1139–1144. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503231163286
Arora, P., Bapuji, H., Higgins, C., Louche, C., & Panwar, R. (2025). Desk Rejection: When the Musical Notes Just Don’t Come Together. Business & Society, 00076503251365795. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503251365795
More To Explore
Use of AI at Business & Society: Interim guidance for authors, reviewers, and editors
Carrot and stick: Ownership reform and CSR performance
Join our mailing list
Would you like to receive e-alerts whenever there is a new post at the blog? Sign up here!