Ethics

Ethical Guidelines for Publishing in TJAS

Authors submitting articles to Thai Journal of Agricultural Science (TJAS) are expected to adhere to the highest ethical standards. The following comprehensive guidelines encompass various aspects of ethical conduct in scholarly publishing:

1. Originality and Data Integrity: Authors must ensure the originality of their work and maintain the integrity of research data. Falsification, fabrication, or manipulation of data is strictly prohibited.

2. Plagiarism Prevention: Authors should avoid all forms of plagiarism by properly attributing and citing sources. Direct quotations and paraphrased content from other works must be appropriately referenced.

3. Authorship and Acknowledgments: Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the study. Proper acknowledgment of the contributions of others, including funding sources, is essential.

4. Duplicate Submission and Redundant Publication: Manuscripts submitted to the journal should not be under consideration by other publications simultaneously. Authors must not engage in redundant publication, which involves submitting substantially similar work to multiple journals without proper cross-referencing.

5. Conflict of Interest: Authors should disclose any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that could influence the research or its interpretation. Transparent reporting of potential conflicts is crucial for maintaining credibility.

6. Informed Consent and Ethical Approval: Research involving human subjects, animals, or sensitive data requires appropriate informed consent and ethical approval. Authors should provide evidence of adherence to ethical standards.

7. Citing Sources and References: Accurate and complete citations of relevant literature are essential. Authors should follow established citation styles and ensure that all referenced works are duly acknowledged.

8. Corrections and Retractions: If errors or inaccuracies are identified in published articles, authors are obliged to promptly inform the journal. In cases of significant errors, retractions or corrections will be issued according to established protocols.

9. Peer Review Process: Authors should engage constructively with the peer review process, responding to reviewers' comments and revising the manuscript as necessary. Reviewers and editors should maintain confidentiality and objectivity during the review process.

10. Editorial Independence: Editors are responsible for fair and unbiased decision-making. They should base their decisions on the manuscript's quality, significance, and adherence to ethical guidelines, without personal or commercial influences.

11. Transparency in Research Reporting: Authors should provide comprehensive and accurate descriptions of their research methods, results, and interpretations to facilitate transparency and reproducibility.

12. Misconduct Investigation: Allegations of research misconduct will be taken seriously. The journal will investigate such claims diligently and take appropriate actions based on the findings.

 

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

1. Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not share or discuss the content with others without permission from the editor.

2. Objectivity and Impartiality: Reviewers should provide an objective and unbiased evaluation of the manuscript, avoiding personal biases or conflicts of interest.

3. Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should offer constructive criticism aimed at helping authors improve their work. Feedback should be specific and actionable, focusing on enhancing the clarity, validity, and significance of the research.

4. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant work that has not been cited by the authors and notify the editor of any substantial similarities with other published work. This ensures proper attribution and maintains the originality of the research.

5. Timeliness: Reviewers should complete their reviews within the agreed-upon time frame. Prompt reviews help maintain the efficiency of the publication process and respect the authors’ timeline.

 

Ethics of the Journal (TJAS)

1. Editorial Independence: TJAS bases editorial decisions solely on academic merit, free from commercial or political influence, ensuring a fair and objective evaluation process.

2. Confidentiality: TJAS maintains the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and reviewer identities, conducting the review process discreetly to protect sensitive information.

3. Conflict of Interest Management: TJAS requires full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest from editors, authors, and reviewers, ensuring unbiased and fair handling of manuscripts.

4. Fair and Review Process: TJAS upholds a fair, unbiased, and timely peer-review process, maintaining reviewer and author anonymity to ensure impartiality and trust.

5. Corrections and Retractions: TJAS ensures the accuracy of the scientific record by publishing corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern as needed.

6. Accessibility and Inclusivity: TJAS promotes accessibility and inclusivity, encouraging submissions from diverse authors and disciplines to broaden the scope and impact of published research.

 

Publication Malpractice Statement

At TJAS, we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and take all possible measures to prevent publication malpractice. Authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher are expected to adhere to the following principles:

 

Authors' Responsibilities

1. Originality and Plagiarism:

  • Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original. Any use of other authors' work or words should be appropriately cited or quoted.
  • Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

2. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication:

  • Authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals constitutes unethical publishing behavior.

3. Acknowledgment of Sources:

  • Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced the reported work.

4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:

  • Authors must disclose any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.
  • All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

5. Authorship of the Paper:

  • Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.
  • All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

6. Reporting Standards:

  • Authors should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
  • Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

7. Data Access and Retention:

  • Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

 

Reviewers' Responsibilities

1. Confidentiality:

  • Reviewers must treat the manuscript as confidential. They must not disclose any information about a manuscript to anyone other than the editor.

2. Acknowledgment of Sources:

  • Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
  • Reviewers should notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

3. Standards of Objectivity:

  • Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

4. Promptness:

  • Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.

5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:

  • Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

 

Editors' Responsibilities

1. Publication Decisions:

  • The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions.
  • The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

2. Fair Play:

  • An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

3. Confidentiality:

  • The editor must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:

  • Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
  • Editors should recuse themselves (i.e., should ask a co-editor, associate editor, or other editorial board member instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.