Submission Guidelines and Policies
- Submission guidelines and requirements can be found here. To submit, go here.
- The code sharing policy can be found here and FAQ here.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policy
Instructions for providing a conflict of interest disclosure statement can be found here.
Artificial Intelligence Disclosure Policies
AI Policy for Authors: The use of AI software may be employed in the preparation of a manuscript. to assist authors in drafting or editing text or improving the quality of their code. Authors remain solely accountable for, and must thoroughly fact-check, outputs created with the help of artificial intelligence tools. Authors may briefly describe the use of these tools in the submission to the journal, but they should not be listed as co-authors.
For new datasets, data classification, or analysis where AI tools were used in their creation, the JF asks authors to: (1) either use open-source AI models or clearly time-stamped versions of proprietary models (e.g., OpenAI model “gpt-4.1-2025-10-01,” accessed October 2025; OpenAI API model “gpt-4.1-preview-2025-10-01,” accessed October 2025); and (2) provide detailed documentation of the prompts used to create the data. Disclosure of this information will ensure better replicability of research output and support the transmission of best practices in the use of AI tools in finance.
AI Policy for Referees: The use of AI software may be employed in the preparation of referee reports to assist with drafting or editing text or looking up prior references. However, referees remain solely accountable for, and must thoroughly fact-check, outputs created with the help of artificial intelligence tools.
Appeals
The Journal of Finance: Insights and Perspectives allows authors to appeal rejected submissions for a fee of $500.
For an appeal to potentially have merit (and to trigger a fresh review), the author must provide a solid argument that the referees, AE, and/or the editors have made an error in the evaluation of the paper based on what was in the original submission. The appeal only has merit if the author can argue that substance in the original paper (or possibly elsewhere in existing literature) refutes points raised by the reviewing team that were material in the decision to reject the paper. For example, arguments that issues that lead to rejection could be fixed in a revised version of the paper are not valid grounds for appeal. Moreover, the errors have to be mistakes concerning facts. Appeals based on subjective judgments about the contribution of the paper will not be considered.
Click here for a more detailed description of the appeal policy and instructions for submitting.