Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics

Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research in Asia (JSHRA) is established to support the academic work and research findings of Thai and foreign academician, researcher, and expert.  The journal aims to disseminate and exchange new technology and knowledge, especially in the field of humanities and social sciences. In order to have accurate communication and in compliance with the international standard, it is essential at this juncture to identify the journal roles and responsibilities for publication guidelines, good practices, and publication ethics stated as follows;

 

Ethics of Authors

  1. Every corresponding author named in the publication must truly contribute to the research. Authors should disclose support funding in the section/part of research acknowledgment (if available).
  2. Authors should properly produce the article following the format requirements of the journal guidelines.
  3. If the authors’ study mentioned the other author's works, the authors must cite the other’s works in the reference part according to the format in the journal guidelines.
  4. Authors who submit the articles to access a quality assessment must certify that the manuscript is a brand-new work, has not been previously published, and is not reviewed by any journal (authors must sign to guarantee the articles in the manuscript sending form.).
  5. Authors must present the truthful facts and results in the research study. The authors must not present inaccurate findings or distorted information; if available. The authors must also specify the conflict of interest present in the study.

 

Ethics of Editors and Editor in Chief

Editors

  1. Editors are responsible for evaluating and selecting a quality manuscript to be published after the manuscript has achieved the qualification following the manuscript evaluation. The manuscript evaluation process decided the originality of the article, clarification, importance, completeness, and consistency to the journal’s policy.  In addition, the editor’s responsibility includes article screening according to the international standards for publication in the editor's committed journal.
  2. Editors must seriously check the manuscript plagiarism with a reliable application. In case, during the evaluation process, it is found that the manuscript duplicates the other work, the editor must terminate the assessment and contact the corresponding author. The editor must investigate the manuscript duplication and notify the publication approval to corresponding author.  In principle, the manuscript published in the journal must not be copied from other works.
  3. During the article evaluation process, editors must not reveal any information, including the details of the authors and the assessors.
  4. Editors must not gain any conflict of interest among the authors, assessors, and the executive person in the same or other offices.
  5. Editors must not reject publishing the manuscript because of the editors' biasness such as suspicion or hesitation or any reasons related to the manuscript not complying with the requirements until the editors can declare the academic evidence to prove that doubtfulness.
  6. Editors must reject publishing the manuscript that had been previously published in any other journals or proceedings.

 

Editor in Chief

  1. An editor in chief has the role in considering and examining every manuscript published in the journal. To pick a manuscript, the editor in chief would analyze the correspondence between the manuscript content, purposes, and the journal scope.  In addition, before publishing, the manuscript must be applied for quality assessment.
  2. An editorial department has a role in analyzing and examining every manuscript sent for publication in the journal. The editorial department manuscript approval process involves an analysis of the consistency of manuscript content with the journal's purposes and scope.  It includes the evaluation of the article under the quality assessment before being published.
  3. The editorial department must refuse to reach any author and expert to avoid any conflicts of interest, whether for business benefit or possession of academic work.
  4. The editorial department must not block, change, or interfere in the data exchange between the expert and author.
  5. The editorial department must strongly follow the journal procedure.

 

Ethics of Reviewers

  1. Reviewers must not have any conflicts of interest with the author, such as becoming a co-researcher, having a relationship, knowing the author personally, or other reasons that restrict or causing the reviewers to be unable in giving their suggestions or opinions freely. If the reviewers recognize that they may have a conflict of interest with the author, the reviewer has to inform the journal editor and refuse to evaluate that manuscript.
  2. Reviewers must keep being confidential and conceal some parts or the whole detail of the manuscript sent for the quality assessment to another irrelevant person for the entire assessment time.
  3. Reviewers must notify the editor when they discover the similarity or duplication of any parts of a manuscript to another author's work through the clear enclosure of evidence.
  4. Reviewers should evaluate a manuscript according to their expert field of study. The assessors must explore the importance, trend, and article value in the field of study.  The reviewers apply their expertise, not their ideas, without any supporting academic knowledge to analyze the quality and intensity of a manuscript according to the terms of manuscript selection.
  5. Reviewers must suggest or specify the significance and consistency of the study within the manuscript they are evaluating, if the author did not mention it in the research.

Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) 

The Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research in Asia (JSHRA) acknowledges the increasing role of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools and Large Language Models (LLMs) in supporting academic research and scholarly communication. These technologies may provide valuable assistance in various stages of manuscript preparation, including language improvement, idea development, literature exploration, and organizational support.

However, the use of AI-based tools must be conducted responsibly and ethically. GenAI and LLMs should be considered as supportive instruments rather than substitutes for researchers’ intellectual contributions, academic judgment, creativity, and critical analysis. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and scholarly quality of their submitted manuscripts.

Authors should carefully evaluate AI-generated content and ensure that information produced by such tools is accurate, relevant, and free from unsupported claims, fabricated references, or misleading interpretations. Particular attention should be given to potential issues related to plagiarism, copyright infringement, data privacy, and biases embedded within AI systems.

To promote transparency and uphold academic integrity, JSHRA encourages authors to disclose the appropriate use of GenAI or LLM tools during the research and manuscript preparation process when such use has contributed significantly to the development of the submitted work. The disclosure should clarify the purpose and extent of AI assistance while maintaining accountability for all published content.

The editorial team, reviewers, and authors are encouraged to consider ethical principles and responsible practices when engaging with AI technologies. JSHRA will continue to review and update this policy in response to emerging developments in artificial intelligence and evolving standards in academic publishing.

Reviewers and Editors’ Responsibilities Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI)

Reviewers

Peer reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the academic quality and integrity of the Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research in Asia (JSHRA). Reviewers are entrusted with confidential manuscripts and are expected to conduct evaluations based on their professional expertise, scholarly judgment, and ethical responsibilities.

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, research data, or any parts of a manuscript under review to GenAI tools or external AI-based platforms. Such actions may compromise the confidentiality of authors’ unpublished work, intellectual property rights, and the integrity of the peer review process. Furthermore, AI-generated assessments may contain inaccurate information, unsupported interpretations, or unintended biases, which may affect the fairness and reliability of the review process.

The evaluation and recommendations provided by reviewers must be based on their own critical analysis and academic expertise. The knowledge, experience, and contextual understanding of reviewers are fundamental to assessing the originality, methodological appropriateness, theoretical contribution, and scholarly value of submitted manuscripts. These responsibilities cannot be delegated to GenAI systems.

Reviewers are accountable for the accuracy, fairness, and professional integrity of their review reports. The peer review process relies on mutual trust, confidentiality, and ethical collaboration among authors, reviewers, and editors.

Editors

Editors of JSHRA are responsible for ensuring that the editorial process is conducted fairly, transparently, and according to academic ethical standards. Editorial decisions require human expertise, independent judgment, and careful consideration of the quality, relevance, and contribution of submitted manuscripts.

Editors must not upload submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, or any confidential materials related to the publication process into GenAI tools. Such use may risk breaches of confidentiality, unauthorized disclosure of unpublished research, and potential violations of intellectual property rights.

GenAI tools must not be used as substitutes for editorial judgment or decision-making. The evaluation of manuscripts requires critical thinking, contextual understanding, and ethical consideration that cannot be adequately performed by automated systems. Editors remain fully responsible for manuscript screening, reviewer selection, final publication decisions, and communication with authors.

Important Reminder

Authors, reviewers, and editors must not upload manuscripts under review, confidential review materials, or any unpublished parts of a submission to GenAI tools. Protecting confidentiality, intellectual property, and research integrity is a shared responsibility throughout the publication process.

The Principle of the Journal

  1. A selected manuscript published in the journal must obtain a quality assessment result that passes the criteria from two(2) of three(3) peer reviews within/ inside and outside the university for each manuscript. In addition, those peer reviews must not work in the same office of the author.
  2. The peer review must be a double-blind peer review.
  3. For a manuscript related to research in humans and animals, the editor in chief reserves the priority to examine only the research that the Human and Laboratory Animal Research Ethics Committee has approved.
  4. If a reader notices that a manuscript has been copied or claimed their work falsely without citation or causing the reader misunderstand that it was their work, a report must be made to the editor in chief.
  5. The manuscript, texts, illustrations, and table published in the journal are the author’s individual ideas. The editor in chief does not necessarily agree with or be responsible for the publication; it is only the author’s responsibility that bear the consequences.
  6. Any manuscript submitted to the editor in chief is reserved not to return to the author.