Ethics

Ethics for the publication of academic/research work in the Thai Social Science Journal (TSSJ’s Publication Ethics) The Thai Social Science Journal adheres to the principles of publication ethics according to international standards according to the framework of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as follows:

(Mostly revised and translated from https://publicationethics.org/)

 

1. Publication ethics for original authors

1. Authors of articles must be responsible and certify that articles submitted for publication in the Thai Social Science Journal must not have been published or are under consideration by qualified persons for publication in other journals.

2. Authors of articles must strictly comply with the criteria for submitting academic articles or research articles for publication in the Thai Social Science Journal, including the reference system must be in accordance with the journal’s criteria.

3. Authors must edit and revise the article to be in accordance with the journal’s format under the “Guidelines for Authors” section, especially the section on the format of manuscript preparation, which will lead to articles with the same standard publication format.

4. Authors must take into account research ethics, i.e., they must not violate or copy the work of others as their own.

5. The author whose name appears in the article must have participated in the preparation of the article or the research. This is reserved for those who did not participate in the preparation of the article. They will not be allowed to be included under any circumstances. If it is found that there are people who did not participate in the preparation of the article, the journal will immediately withdraw the article.

6. The author must be responsible for citing the content of the work, images, or tables if they are used in their own article. They must state the “source” to prevent copyright infringement (if there is a lawsuit, it will be the sole responsibility of the author. The journal will not be responsible in any way). The article will be withdrawn from publication by the journal immediately.

7. The author must check the accuracy of the reference list in terms of both format and content. They should not cite academic documents that they have not read or include them in the reference documents. They should cite only necessary documents appropriately. They should not cite too many documents. They must also cite according to the reference format of the article and must cite according to the format specified by the journal.

8. The author must revise the article according to the evaluation results from the article evaluators and the editorial board. It must be completed within the specified time. If the revision is not as specified, publication will be postponed or the article may be rejected for publication.

9. Authors should specify the name of the funding source that supported the research (if any) and should specify conflicts of interest (if any).

10. Authors must not report information that is inaccurate, whether it is creating false information, forging, distorting, including decorating or selecting to show only information that is consistent with the conclusion.

11. Authors should not cite documents that have been withdrawn, unless the text that needs to be supported is a text related to the retraction process, and must be stated in the references that it is a document that has been withdrawn.

12. Authors must cite the work of others and show the reference in the content (In-text citation) if those works are used in their own work, including creating a bibliography at the end of every article.

 

2. Publication ethics for article assessors

1. Article assessors should have ethics, which is to accept the assessment of articles that they are skilled in, or have qualifications or expertise in the topic or article being assessed. Article assessors should assess articles in their fields of expertise, considering the importance of the content of the article to that field of study, the quality of the analysis, and the intensity of the work or specifying important research works that are consistent with the article being assessed, but the author of the article did not cite them in the article assessment. Evaluators should not use unsupported personal opinions as criteria for judging articles and should reject articles that they are not familiar with.

2. Article evaluators should have ethics, which is to present their own academic opinions in the evaluation form or in the article content fairly, without bias, straightforwardness, and without prejudice, including being on time as specified by the journal for evaluation.

3. Article evaluators should have ethics, which is to keep the confidentiality and not disclose information of articles submitted for consideration to unrelated persons during the article evaluation period, including after the article evaluation is complete.

4. After receiving an article from the journal editor and the article evaluator realizes that he/she may have a conflict of interest with the author, which prevents him/her from giving independent opinions and suggestions, the article evaluator should inform the journal editor and refuse to evaluate that article.

5. Article evaluators should take into account the consideration of the topic and title. If it is an academic article, the title can be considered for editing. However, if it is a research article, only spelling errors should be considered and the research article title should not be changed.

6. Article evaluators must not use some or all of the information in the article as their own work.

7. When the article evaluator finds that any part of the article is similar or duplicates other works The article reviewer must inform the editor and provide evidence.

 

 

3. Publication ethics of the journal editorial board

1. The editor must supervise and monitor the operation of the journal to comply with the policy and objectives in accordance with ethics/professional ethics.

2. The editor must supervise, monitor, and take appropriate action against authors or articles found to have committed ethical/professional misconduct.

3. The editor must supervise and monitor the publication of articles with conflicts of interest, such as the publication of one's own articles (editor or editor-in-chief) in a significant way, or without reviewing the quality of the articles before publication by qualified persons who have no vested interest in the articles, etc.

4. The editor is responsible for supervising and considering the quality of articles for publication in the journal and must select articles for publication after the article evaluation process, taking into account the clarity and consistency of the content with the journal's policies as important factors. It must also contain knowledge that reflects perspectives, theoretical concepts gained from experience, document synthesis, or research, focusing on presenting new theoretical concepts, including conceptual models that help enhance understanding that will lead to research on important academic topics.

5. The editor must not disclose information about authors and article assessors to other unrelated persons during the article evaluation period. The journal has set a double blind peer-reviewed method.

6. Editors must not publish articles that have been published elsewhere. They must seriously check for plagiarism to ensure that articles published in the journal do not plagiarize the work of others. If plagiarism is found beyond the specified limit, the evaluation process must be stopped and the main author of the article must be contacted immediately to request clarification in order to “accept” or “reject” the publication of that article.

7. Editors must not have any conflict of interest with the authors and reviewers in order to strictly maintain good governance in the operation.

8. Editors must not use some or all parts of the information in the article as their own work.

9. Editors are responsible for considering the publication of research that has proper research methods and produces reliable results, using the research results as a guideline for deciding whether or not it should be published.

10. If the editor finds that an article has inappropriately copied other articles or falsified information that should be retracted, but the author refuses to retract the article, the editor can retract the article without the author’s consent, which is the editor’s right and responsibility for the article.

11. Editors are responsible for considering the capabilities of the editorial team. And should assign tasks that match each person's abilities.

12. Editors must supervise and monitor both themselves and the working group on the number and quality of references in journals that deviate from reality, such as supervising and requesting references in journal articles, whether secret or open, and using references that are incorrect and inconsistent with the content.

13. Editors must supervise and monitor the collection of page charges or processing fees, i.e., the collection process must be transparent, such as clearly announcing the collection process or specifying the price or conditions of the collection of page charges as strictly stated in the announcement.