Publication Ethics

Each manuscript undergoes an initial review, and if it is not written clearly and coherently or does not conform to the guidelines in the current "Requirements for Authors", it may be rejected without review.

The received manuscript is subject to double blind review. Within 2 months of receiving the manuscript in the editorial office of the journal, the executive editor informs the corresponding author about the status of the manuscript. If corrections are needed, the manuscript approved after peer review is returned to the corresponding author. The author has 30 days to correct the manuscript and return it to the editorial office of the journal. After the expiration of this period, it is assumed that the author refuses to publish the manuscript.

The time for corrections can be extended once after a written request has been submitted by the corresponding author to the editor-in-chief of the journal before the expiry of the 30-day period.

The editors are not responsible for inaccurate citations, including misquoting of website content and copyright infringement.

After publication of the manuscript, the owner of the exclusive rights to use the work is the Faculty of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment, Naresuan University.

 

Duties of Authors

1. Authors must submit work that is new and has not been previously published.
2. Authors must cite the work of others accurately and completely. When those works are used in your own work.
3. The article lists the names of the authors. It is imperative that everyone engages in the task.
4. Authors are required to adhere to the prescribed structure when writing research publications. Furthermore, the events that transpired were accurately documented. Furthermore, it is imperative to provide a comprehensive disclosure of the financial resources that are backing the research. In accordance with the APA style guidelines for journal formatting
5. The contents of the article and all elements of the article are the sole responsibility of the author.
6. Authors must clearly state conflicts of interest.
7. The decision of the editorial team is final

 

Duties of Editors

1. Upon the author's submission of the article. The journal editors will choose, designate, and collaborate with article assessors who possess specialized knowledge in that particular field. If any adjustments or extra recommendations arise, they will be addressed and coordinated with the writers. To enhance, refine, and advance the quality of the article.
2. Editors are required to uphold confidentiality. To maintain confidentiality, the names and details of the writers and article evaluators will not be disclosed until the job is completed.
3. Editors will determine the articles to be published by employing a methodical evaluation approach that adheres to the journal's criteria.
4. Editors will reject articles that have already been published elsewhere.
5. Editors will base their decisions on recommendations provided by article evaluators and assess the accuracy and suitability of the supporting evidence presented by authors.
6. Editors will rigorously scrutinize. In order to prevent the publication of papers that include plagiarized content, any instances of plagiarism will be identified and addressed at any point in the process. The program will terminate its execution and establish communication with the author. Offer elucidation to be taken into account while deciding whether to accept or decline publication.
7. Editors must be free from any conflicts of interest with authors and article evaluators. including any individuals participating in such advantages.
8. The decision of the editorial team is final.

 

Duties of  Reviewers

1. The reviewer should contribute to improving the quality of the manuscript through objective analysis, providing an unbiased, constructive and detailed assessment of its scientific content.
2. The reviewer evaluates the manuscript confidentially. The manuscript is not disclosed or discussed with third parties.
3. The reviewer should be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative, or other relationships between the reviewer and the author), alert the editor of this, and if necessary decline to review the manuscript.
4. A reviewer should refuse to review a manuscript if it is determined that it is outside their competence. The same applies if this is identified in the manuscript review process.
5. The reviewer objectively evaluates the scientific value and qualities of the manuscript without allowing personal comments about the author or the manuscript.