Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

AJSTR is committed to the integrity of the scholarly record. The journal follows the COPE Core Practices and uses the COPE flowcharts when handling ethical concerns. This statement applies to authors, reviewers, editors, guest editors and the publisher.

1. Responsibilities of Authors

  • Originality. Submit only original work that has not been published and is not under consideration elsewhere. Properly cite and, where needed, obtain permission for all material taken from other sources, including your own earlier publications.
  • Authorship. List as authors only those who made a substantial contribution to the work, took part in drafting or revising it, approved the final version and accept responsibility for it. Describe each contribution using the CRediT taxonomy. Gift, guest and ghost authorship are not acceptable. Changes to the author list after submission require a written explanation and the signed agreement of all authors, and are not normally accepted after acceptance.
  • Data integrity. Report data honestly and completely. Keep the raw data and provide it to the editor on request. Do not fabricate, falsify, selectively omit or manipulate data or images.
  • Conflicts of interest and funding. Declare all funding sources and any financial or personal relationship that could be seen as influencing the work.
  • Research ethics. Obtain approval from a relevant ethics committee for work with human participants (including surveys) or animals, obtain informed consent, and report the committee, approval number and date. Comply with permits for field work and access to biological resources.
  • Multiple publication. Do not submit the same work to more than one journal at the same time, and do not split one study into several thin papers ("salami slicing"). Disclose related preprints, conference papers and submissions.
  • Citation. Cite the sources that genuinely support the work. Excessive self-citation and citation agreements between authors or journals are not acceptable.
  • Errors. If you find a significant error in your published or submitted work, inform the editor promptly and cooperate with any correction or retraction.

2. Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Confidentiality. Treat the manuscript as confidential. Do not share it, discuss it, upload it to AI tools or use its content before publication.
  • Conflicts of interest. Decline the review if you have a personal, professional or financial relationship with any author or their institution, or if you cannot be impartial.
  • Objectivity. Judge the work on scientific merit only. Give constructive, evidence-based comments without personal criticism or bias related to nationality, gender, religion or institution.
  • No coercive citation. Do not ask authors to cite your own work or a particular journal unless it is clearly necessary for the science.
  • Vigilance. Tell the editor, in confidence, about any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data or image manipulation.
  • Timeliness. Complete reviews within the agreed time or tell the editorial office promptly if you cannot.

3. Responsibilities of Editors

  • Fair decisions. Decide on manuscripts on the basis of scientific quality, originality and fit with the journal's scope only — never on the authors' nationality, institution, gender, beliefs or ability to pay.
  • Independence. Editorial decisions are independent of the publisher, funders and any commercial interest. APC payment and waivers are handled by the editorial office separately from editorial decisions.
  • Confidentiality. Disclose information about a manuscript only to the authors, reviewers and editors involved, and protect reviewers' identities.
  • Conflicts of interest. Editors step aside from any manuscript where they have a conflict. Manuscripts authored by the Editor-in-Chief or other editors are handled by an editor with no conflict, are peer reviewed in the same way as all others, and their authors have no access to the review records.
  • Guest editors. Special Issues are overseen by a regular AJSTR editor, who approves all final decisions. Guest editors do not handle manuscripts on which they are authors, and no more than a small proportion of papers in a Special Issue may be authored by its guest editors.
  • Reviewer integrity. Editors check the identity and expertise of reviewers, use institutional email addresses, and do not rely only on reviewers suggested by authors.
  • Acting on concerns. Editors investigate credible allegations of misconduct and take appropriate action following COPE guidance (Section 7).

4. Responsibilities of the Publisher

Thaksin University supports the editorial team in following this statement, respects the editors' independence, and ensures that published content is preserved, assigned Crossref DOIs, and corrected or retracted transparently when needed. The publisher does not influence individual editorial decisions.

5. Types of Misconduct

Plagiarism
Using others' text, ideas, data or images without citation, including self-plagiarism (text recycling) without disclosure. All submissions are screened with iThenticate; overall similarity above 30%, or substantial copying from a single source at any level, leads to rejection.
Fabrication and falsification
Inventing data or results, or altering data, methods or images so that the record does not reflect the research actually done. Image adjustments must apply to the whole image and must not hide or create features.
Duplicate or redundant publication
Publishing substantially the same work more than once, or submitting it to several journals at the same time.
Authorship misconduct
Gift, guest or ghost authorship; adding or removing authors without agreement; selling or buying authorship positions.
Peer review manipulation
Suggesting fake or conflicted reviewers, using fabricated reviewer email addresses, or attempting to contact or influence reviewers.
Paper mills and citation manipulation
Submitting manuscripts produced by third-party services that fabricate or sell papers; coordinated or coerced citation. The journal screens for warning signs such as tortured phrases, irrelevant references and suspicious author or reviewer patterns.

6. Use of Generative AI

Authors may use AI tools to improve language and must declare their use on the Title Page. AI tools cannot be authors. AI must not be used to create or alter data, results or images unless it is part of the described research method. Authors are fully responsible for all content.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts to AI tools or use AI to write or evaluate their reports.

Editors do not use AI tools to make editorial decisions or upload manuscripts to AI tools that do not protect confidentiality.

7. Handling Allegations of Misconduct

AJSTR investigates concerns raised before or after publication, including anonymous reports that include specific evidence, following the COPE flowcharts.

Step Action
1Initial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief (or an editor without a conflict) reviews the concern and the evidence and decides whether it needs investigation.
2Contact the authors. The corresponding author is informed of the concern and asked for an explanation and, if relevant, the raw data. All parties are treated fairly and confidentially.
3Investigation. The editors assess the response, consulting independent experts where needed. If the response is unsatisfactory, the authors' institution may be asked to investigate.
4Outcome. Depending on the findings: no action; correction; expression of concern; rejection of a manuscript under review; retraction of a published article; notification of the authors' institutions; and, in serious cases, a temporary ban on submissions from the authors involved.
5Communication. The authors and the person who raised the concern are told the outcome. The identity of a person who raises a concern in good faith is protected.

8. Corrections, Expressions of Concern and Retractions

Correction (Erratum / Corrigendum)
For honest errors that do not change the main conclusions. Published as a linked notice describing what was changed.
Expression of Concern
When there is serious doubt about an article but an investigation is not yet complete or is inconclusive.
Retraction
When findings are unreliable because of misconduct or major error, or in cases of plagiarism, duplicate publication or unethical research. The article remains online, watermarked "Retracted", with a linked notice explaining the reason.

All notices are published openly, carry their own DOI where applicable, and are linked to the original article. Articles are not removed from the record except in rare legal cases. See the List of Retracted Articles.

9. Complaints and Appeals

Complaints about the journal's processes, staff or editorial conduct should be sent to aseanjstr@tsu.ac.th with the subject "Complaint". They are acknowledged within 5 working days and handled by an editor not involved in the matter. Complaints about the Editor-in-Chief are referred to the Director of the Institute of Research and Innovation, Thaksin University. Appeals against editorial decisions follow the procedure on the Peer Review Process page. If a complaint is not resolved, it may be referred to COPE.

10. Report an Ethical Concern

Anyone may report a concern about a manuscript or published article. Please include the article title or DOI (or manuscript ID), a clear description of the concern, and any supporting evidence. Reports may be anonymous, but contact details help us follow up.

Ethical Concern Form or email aseanjstr@tsu.ac.th with the subject "Ethical Concern – [Article DOI or Manuscript ID]".

This statement is based on the COPE Core Practices and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, and is reviewed annually by the Editorial Board. Last updated: October 2026.
Related: Author Guidelines · Peer Review Process · About the Journal