Ethics Declarations for Research in Humans

- If the research involves human subjects, their data, or biological material, authors must ensure that the work has been carried out following The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for experiments involving humans. The research must obtain ethical approval from the local Institutional Review Board (IRB) or other appropriate ethics committees for all research on humans according to national and international guidelines.
- The authors must ensure that the manuscript includes a declaration stating that all procedures followed applicable laws and institutional guidelines and that they have been approved by the relevant institutional committee(s). This statement should include the date and reference number of the obtained ethical approval(s). The manuscript must also contain a statement acknowledging that informed consent was obtained from human subjects before experimentation was conducted. It is essential to uphold the privacy rights of human subjects at all times.
- It's important to note that the journal has a strict policy regarding the data included in manuscripts. Specifically, any data derived from organs or tissue that have been unethically sourced, including from executed prisoners or prisoners of conscience, will not be accepted. This policy is in line with recommendations made by Global Rights Compliance on Mitigating Human Rights Risks in Transplantation Medicine.

 

Ethics Declarations for Research in Animals

- Scientific research involving animals must follow guidelines set by national and international organizations, such as the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) and/or Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, Thai Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (Thai IACUC), to ensure their welfare and minimize their suffering. All research must be approved by an ethics committee, and the authors must indicate the ethics committee's name and approval number in their manuscript, which should be provided in the Materials and Methods section, along with the national and international guidelines that were followed. Furthermore, the sex of the animals used in the study and any influence or association the sex may have had on the study's results must be disclosed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Duties of Authors

1. The article has not been published previously and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, and is not being  simultaneously submitted elsewhere.
2. Original research articles should be presented with an accurate account of the work performed and the results. Authors of review articles should present an accurate and comprehensive.
3. The authors should ensure that they have written and submit entirely original works following the Authors Guideline of Thai Journal of Toxicology. Authors should cite publications that they have used the work and/or words of others. In all its forms, plagiarism constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
4. Only persons who meet the authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript.
5. If the work includes chemicals, methods or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must identify these in the materials and methods part of manuscript.
6. For all works, the reporting data from studies involving animals or human subjects, formal review and approval by an appropriate institutional review board or ethics committee are required.
7. All sources of financial support for the work should be included in the acknowledgement part of manuscript, for example, name and number of grants.
8. Potential conflicts of interest should be included in the manuscript (if any).

 

---

 

Duties of Editors

1. Editors evaluate the submitted manuscripts without regard to the authors’ race, gender, or institutional affiliation.
2. Editors ensure that all manuscripts undergo peer-review by at least two expert reviewers in that field.
3. Editors have no conflicts of interest with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the articles. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest, instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.
4. Editors will not disclose all information of a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
5. Editors and members of editorial board will not copy unpublished data from the submitted manuscripts for their research without the permission from authors.
6. Editors are responsible for checking the original of all submitted manuscripts in order to ensure that the manuscript does not contain all forms of plagiarism and self-plagiarism.
7. If any of plagiarism are detected, all considering process will be stopped and the editors will contact corresponding author for explanation to support their decision in “accept” or “reject” that manuscript.

 

---

 

Duties of Reviewers

1. Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the manuscript should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review. Editors will be able to change and invite other reviewers.
2. Reviewers will not disclose all information of a submitted manuscript to anyone who not involve in the review process. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
3. Reviewers will not copy unpublished data from the submitted manuscript for their own research without the express written consent of authors. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
4. Any invited reviewers who has conflicts of interest resulting from collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, or any other reasons should immediately inform the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review.
5. Reviewers should be able to identify important and relevant information points for the manuscript that has not been cited by the authors in the evaluation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished).