Ethics
Ethics Overview
COPE — Committee on Publication Ethics
AJSTR follows all guidelines established by COPE, the leading international body for publication ethics. All editors, reviewers, and authors are expected to adhere to COPE's Code of Conduct at every stage of the review and publication process.
The ASEAN Journal of Scientific and Technological Reports (AJSTR) is committed to upholding the highest standards of ethical conduct in scientific publishing. This page sets out the ethical responsibilities of all parties involved — authors, reviewers, and editors — as well as AJSTR's procedures for handling misconduct, corrections, and retractions.
The integrity of the scientific record depends on honest reporting, transparent methods, fair review, and responsible authorship. AJSTR actively works to prevent and address publication malpractice, and we encourage all stakeholders to report ethical concerns through our established reporting process.
📌 Scope of this policy: This ethics statement applies to all manuscripts submitted to, under review at, and published in AJSTR — including original research articles, review articles, and any supplementary materials. All parties (authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher) are bound by these principles from the point of submission onwards.
Core COPE Principles
AJSTR applies the following six COPE core principles in all aspects of its editorial and publication practices. These principles guide every interaction between the journal and its authors, reviewers, and readers.
Research Integrity
All research must be conducted in an ethical and transparent manner, with a focus on scientific rigour and reproducibility. Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism are unacceptable and will result in rejection or retraction of published articles.
Authorship & Contributorship
Authors must be appropriately acknowledged for their contributions. All listed authors must have participated substantially in the work and must have reviewed and approved the final manuscript. The CRediT taxonomy is used to specify individual contributions.
Conflicts of Interest
Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial, personal, or institutional affiliations that could influence the research, its review, or its publication. Undisclosed conflicts of interest are a form of publication malpractice.
Peer Review Integrity
Peer review must be transparent, fair, and conducted by appropriately qualified experts. Reviewers must provide constructive, evidence-based feedback and avoid personal bias, conflicts of interest, or misuse of unpublished information.
Data Transparency & Reproducibility
Authors must provide access to the data, code, and methods used in their research to allow for transparency and independent verification of findings. Data manipulation, selective reporting, and fabrication of results are prohibited.
Editorial Accountability
AJSTR maintains clear policies and procedures for handling ethical concerns, misconduct allegations, corrections, and retractions. Editorial decisions are made solely on scientific merit and are independent of commercial or institutional pressures.
Responsibilities by Role
Submitted work must be original, not previously published, and not under review elsewhere. All content from other sources must be properly cited. Similarity > 30% (iThenticate) leads to rejection.
All individuals who have contributed substantially must be listed as authors. Ghost authorship and gift authorship are violations. All authors must have read and approved the final version before submission.
All data must be presented accurately. Data fabrication, manipulation, selective omission, and image falsification are unacceptable and may result in retraction and notification of the author's institution.
Disclose all funding sources and any personal or professional relationships that could influence the research or its interpretation. If no conflict exists, state: "The authors declare no conflict of interest."
Studies involving human or animal subjects must be approved by the relevant ethics board. Ethics committee name, approval date, and permit number must be stated in the manuscript.
Do not submit the same work to multiple journals simultaneously. Do not publish the same data in two articles without explicit disclosure and justification. Prior conference papers must be disclosed.
If significant errors are discovered after publication, authors must promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief and cooperate with the issuance of corrections or retractions.
Evaluate manuscripts solely on scientific merit, methodology, and relevance. Do not allow personal opinions about the authors, their institution, or their nationality to influence your assessment.
Treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. Do not share, discuss, or use unpublished content from a manuscript under review — before or after the review decision.
Decline review invitations if you have a personal, financial, or professional relationship with any of the authors or their institution. Declare any potential conflict before accepting a review assignment.
Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe (2 weeks). If unable to meet the deadline, notify the editorial office promptly so that alternative arrangements can be made.
Report any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, or other misconduct to the Editor-in-Chief. Do not simply reject the manuscript — formal investigation may be required.
Provide specific, actionable, and respectful feedback. Personal criticism of authors is unacceptable. Comments must be grounded in scientific evidence, not stylistic preferences.
Ensure that all manuscripts receive fair, impartial peer review based on scientific merit and scope. Editorial decisions must not be influenced by the authors' identity, institution, nationality, or funding source.
Maintain strict confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts. Information about a manuscript may only be disclosed to those directly involved in the editorial and review process.
Recuse yourself from editorial decisions involving manuscripts where you have a personal, financial, or professional conflict of interest. Assign such manuscripts to another editor.
Make editorial decisions promptly and communicate them clearly to authors. The target from submission to first decision is approximately 4 weeks.
Investigate all credible allegations of misconduct thoroughly, following COPE's guidelines. Take appropriate action including retraction, correction, or expression of concern as warranted by the evidence.
Accept manuscripts solely on the basis of scientific quality, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope. Commercial considerations, author prestige, and institutional affiliations must not influence acceptance decisions.
Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct
AJSTR takes all allegations of research misconduct seriously and handles them in accordance with COPE's guidelines and flowcharts. The process below applies to allegations received before and after publication.
Identification & Initial Assessment
Misconduct may be identified through peer review, iThenticate similarity screening, post-publication detection by editors or readers, or formal reports. The Editor-in-Chief reviews the allegation to determine if it warrants a full investigation.
Notification of Accused Party
The corresponding author(s) are notified of the allegation and given an opportunity to respond. All parties are treated fairly and confidentially throughout the investigation. The accused party may present evidence in their defence.
Investigation
The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board conduct a thorough investigation, consulting relevant evidence. For complex cases or severe allegations, external expert advice or institutional escalation may be sought following COPE guidelines.
Decision & Action
Based on the investigation findings, the journal will take one of several actions: reject the manuscript; issue a correction; publish an expression of concern; or retract the published article. If misconduct is confirmed, the relevant institution(s) may also be notified.
Notification of Outcome
All parties involved — including the reporting party — are notified of the investigation outcome. Unsubstantiated allegations are dismissed and all parties are informed. Substantiated cases are handled according to the severity of the misconduct.
📋 AJSTR follows COPE's official flowcharts for handling misconduct. For complex cases, we may seek guidance directly from COPE.
Post-Publication Corrections, Retractions & Expressions of Concern
AJSTR recognises that errors can occur in published research. The integrity of the scientific record requires that errors — whether honest mistakes or deliberate misconduct — are corrected transparently and promptly. The following three mechanisms are available.
⚠ Author responsibility: Authors who discover significant errors in their own published work are obligated to notify the Editor-in-Chief promptly at aseanjstr@tsu.ac.th. Failure to disclose known errors is itself an ethical violation.
Report an Ethical Concern
AJSTR encourages authors, reviewers, readers, and any member of the research community to report ethical concerns or suspected misconduct. All reports are handled confidentially and investigated impartially.
Submit an Ethical Concern Report
Use our dedicated Ethical Concern Reporting Form to report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, inappropriate authorship, conflicts of interest, or any other publication ethics violation. All reports are treated with strict confidentiality.
📋 Open Ethical Concern FormOr email directly: aseanjstr@tsu.ac.th with subject line "Ethical Concern – [Manuscript/Article ID]"
Your report should include: (1) a clear description of the concern, (2) the manuscript or article identifier (if known), (3) any supporting evidence or documentation, and (4) your contact details (optional — anonymous reports are accepted but may limit our ability to follow up).
🛡 Confidentiality guarantee: All submitted reports and the identities of reporting parties are kept strictly confidential throughout the investigation process. AJSTR will not disclose the identity of any person who submits a report in good faith.
AJSTR's Commitments to Publication Integrity
Beyond individual responsibilities, AJSTR as a journal and publisher commits to the following institutional standards of ethical practice.
All editorial processes follow COPE's Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines. AJSTR consults COPE's flowcharts for handling misconduct, disputes, and corrections.
All editorial decisions are based solely on scientific merit. No manuscript will be accepted or rejected based on commercial considerations, funder pressure, author prestige, or institutional affiliation.
All submissions are screened using iThenticate. Manuscripts with similarity scores above 30% are rejected at initial evaluation. Screening continues for accepted manuscripts prior to publication.
All published articles are freely available under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 licence. AJSTR publishes its ethics policies publicly and updates them as best practices evolve.
Published articles receive CrossRef DOIs ensuring permanent identification. Retracted articles retain their DOIs and retraction notices remain visible to maintain the integrity of the scientific record.
AJSTR acknowledges the contribution of peer reviewers. Reviewers may request a Certificate of Peer Review Service. Their identities are protected throughout and after the review process.
