Publication-Ethics

Interdisciplinary Academic and Research Journal (IARJ)

ISSN 2985-2749 (Online)
Publisher: DR.KEN Institute of Academic Development and Promotion, Thailand

The Interdisciplinary Academic and Research Journal (IARJ) is committed to academic integrity, editorial independence, fairness, transparency, and accountability in scholarly publishing.

This policy applies to authors, reviewers, editors, editorial board members, editorial staff, and the publisher. It covers all submissions and ethical concerns arising before, during, or after publication.

The journal follows the principles of the COPE Core Practices and refers to relevant COPE guidance and flowcharts when addressing ethical concerns. Reference to COPE resources does not imply COPE membership.

1. Ethics Role: Publisher, Editors, Reviewers, Authors

1.1 Responsibilities of the Publisher

The publisher must:

Respect and protect the editorial team’s academic independence.
Refrain from interfering with scholarly evaluation or decisions concerning acceptance, revision, rejection, correction, expressions of concern, and retraction.
Ensure that publication charges, advertising, sponsorship, institutional relationships, and other financial or commercial interests do not influence editorial decisions.
Support reliable publication, accessible policies, confidential manuscript handling, and appropriate preservation of the scholarly record.
Provide administrative and technical support for addressing ethical concerns and complaints.
Cooperate with editors and relevant institutions in legitimate inquiries into submitted or published work.
Ensure that information about journal ownership, management, fees, licensing, and publishing arrangements is accurate and publicly accessible.

1.2 Responsibilities of Editors and the Editorial Board

The Editor-in-Chief and editorial board must:

Screen submissions for completeness, presentation, scholarly quality, originality, ethical adequacy, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
Evaluate manuscripts fairly, without discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, political beliefs, institutional affiliation, or other characteristics unrelated to the work.
Arrange double-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise for manuscripts proceeding to external assessment.
Select credible reviewers, assess competing interests, and take reasonable steps to prevent fabricated identities and manipulation of peer review.
Protect manuscripts, supporting records, reviewer reports, personal information, and editorial correspondence from unauthorized disclosure.
Disclose relevant competing interests and withdraw from handling manuscripts when impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
Arrange independent handling of submissions authored by editors, editorial board members, or individuals with close personal or professional relationships to the handling editor.
Consider reviewers’ recommendations while exercising independent scholarly judgment. Reviewers advise; the responsible editor makes the publication decision.
Request clarification, revisions, research records, ethics documentation, or permissions where necessary.
Issue acceptance letters only after the required evaluation has been completed and an acceptance decision has been made.
Address credible concerns about both submitted and published material and give affected authors a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Maintain clear, accessible, and current journal policies.
Correct published material through transparent procedures rather than silent alteration or removal.

Editors and editorial staff must not use unpublished information obtained through their duties for personal advantage. Necessary disclosures for authorized investigations or applicable legal obligations must be limited to relevant information.

1.3 Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must:

Accept assignments only when they have appropriate expertise and can complete the review within the agreed period.
Disclose competing interests and decline or withdraw if an independent assessment is compromised.
Provide objective, respectful, constructive, and evidence-based comments.
Assess originality, relevance, methodological or analytical quality, interpretation, references, and ethical adequacy.
Maintain confidentiality during and after review. Manuscripts must not be shared with others without editorial permission.
Refrain from using unpublished ideas, data, or findings for personal benefit or the benefit of others.
Identify relevant omitted literature where academically justified, without requesting unnecessary citations.
Notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, questionable data, missing ethics approval, or other concerns, providing specific evidence where possible.
Inform the editorial office promptly of delays or circumstances preventing completion.
Follow the AI requirements in Section 5 and remain responsible for their assessments.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly about the manuscript or conduct independent investigations involving participants or institutions. Suspected misconduct must be reported to the editor, who determines the appropriate response.

1.4 Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must:

Follow the journal’s submission instructions and formatting requirements.
Submit original work that has not been published elsewhere as a journal article or full conference-proceedings paper and is not simultaneously under consideration elsewhere.
Report methods, evidence, findings, interpretations, and limitations honestly and accurately.
Acknowledge the words, ideas, data, and materials of others through appropriate citation and permissions.
Avoid plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, misleading manipulation, redundant publication, and interference with peer review.
Provide accurate names, affiliations, contact information, and contribution details.
Ensure that all listed authors have made substantial scholarly contributions, participated in drafting or substantive intellectual revision, approved the final manuscript, agreed to submission and publication, and accepted accountability.
Exclude ghost, guest, gift, honorary, and purchased authorship and avoid omitting eligible contributors.
Identify author contributions using the CRediT taxonomy in accordance with the journal’s submission requirements.
Disclose funding, relevant competing interests, and the funder’s role in the research and publication process.
Obtain required ethics approvals, informed consent, publication consent, and permissions for third-party materials.
Retain supporting records according to applicable institutional, funder, and legal requirements and provide evidence for legitimate editorial inquiries, subject to confidentiality safeguards.
Disclose material AI use as required in Section 5.
Promptly report significant errors and cooperate with clarification, correction, and investigation procedures.

The corresponding author coordinates communication and confirms that all authors approve the submission, author order, contribution statement, revisions, and final version.

Changes to authorship after submission require an explanation and written agreement from all affected authors. Processing may be suspended while an authorship dispute is referred to the relevant institution.

CRediT describes contributions; it does not determine authorship eligibility or author order. Funding, resources, administrative support, supervision, or language assistance alone does not automatically establish authorship eligibility. Non-author contributors should be acknowledged with their permission.

2. Ethical Concerns in Human Subjects

2.1 Research Involving Human Participants

Research involving human participants, identifiable personal information, or human biological materials must comply with applicable institutional, national, and international ethical requirements.

Where required, approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB), Research Ethics Committee (REC), or equivalent body must be obtained before the research begins.

Relevant activities may include interviews, questionnaires, observations, interventions, educational assessments, organizational research, online research, and the use of administrative or personal records.

For medical research involving human participants, authors must follow applicable principles of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.

Permission from a school, employer, community organization, or other institution does not replace independent ethics review or individual informed consent where required.

2.2 Informed Consent

Participation must be voluntary and based on understandable information about:

The study’s purpose and procedures.
Foreseeable risks and benefits.
Confidentiality and intended data use.
Publication arrangements.
The right to decline and applicable withdrawal arrangements.

Authors must obtain and document consent unless an authorized ethics body has approved a waiver or alternative procedure.

Consent to participate does not automatically authorize publication of identifiable information. Specific publication consent is required for identifiable photographs, recordings, quotations, case descriptions, or other personal material.

2.3 Vulnerable Participants and Dependent Relationships

Additional safeguards are required where participants face heightened vulnerability or limited freedom to make independent decisions.

Examples include children, persons with limited decision-making capacity, prisoners, economically disadvantaged participants, and individuals in dependent relationships with researchers, such as students, employees, or service users.

Authors must explain:

Why involving the participants is necessary.
How risks and unequal power relationships were addressed.
How coercion and undue influence were prevented.
How parental or legally authorized representative consent and participant assent were obtained where applicable.
How refusal or withdrawal was prevented from causing unfair consequences.

Community or institutional permission does not substitute for individual consent where required.

2.4 Privacy and Confidentiality

Authors must minimize unnecessary personal information and apply appropriate access controls, secure storage, anonymization, or pseudonymization.

Removing names may be insufficient when identities can be inferred from locations, organizational roles, quotations, or combinations of contextual details.

Public availability of online information does not automatically remove ethical responsibilities concerning its collection, analysis, or publication.

The journal may request redaction, further anonymization, publication consent, or additional safeguards before proceeding.

2.5 Required Ethics Statement

Where applicable, manuscripts should provide ethics approval details, including the approving body and approval number, and briefly describe informed consent procedures and measures to protect participants’ rights, privacy, and confidentiality, particularly for vulnerable groups. Where ethics approval is required, it must be obtained before the research begins.

If the study was exempt from ethics review or approval was not required, authors should briefly explain the basis. The editorial office may request supporting documents through a secure channel. Unnecessary personal information should be redacted before submission. Adding an ethics statement retrospectively does not replace approval that should have been obtained before conducting the research.

3. Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

3.1 Originality, Plagiarism, and Prior Publication

Authors must clearly distinguish their contributions from the work of others.

Plagiarism includes unattributed copying, close paraphrasing, appropriation of ideas or data, and unauthorized translation. Substantial reuse of an author’s own published material must also be disclosed and appropriately cited.

Authors must disclose related manuscripts, publications, theses, preprints, conference abstracts, and other prior dissemination. The editor will assess their compatibility with the journal’s originality requirements.

A previously published full conference-proceedings paper must not be presented as an unpublished original submission.

The journal may use similarity-screening tools. Similarity percentages require contextual interpretation and do not independently establish plagiarism or originality.

3.2 Data Integrity and Transparent Reporting

Fabrication, falsification, deceptive image manipulation, and selective reporting that misrepresents the research are prohibited.

Authors must describe methods and important analytical decisions sufficiently for readers to assess the work. Relevant exclusions, missing data, limitations, and departures from planned procedures must be explained.

Observed evidence must be distinguished from interpretation, speculation, simulation, and generated material.

3.3 Data Availability

Manuscripts should include a Data Availability Statement explaining whether supporting data are:

Available in a repository with a persistent link.
Included in the article or supplementary materials.
Available upon reasonable request under stated conditions.
Restricted for ethical, confidentiality, contractual, or other legitimate reasons.
Not applicable because no new data were generated or analyzed.

Statements must accurately reflect access conditions. Data sharing must respect consent, confidentiality, intellectual property, and other applicable obligations.

3.4 Competing Interests and Funding

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose financial and non-financial relationships that could reasonably influence, or appear to influence, their judgment.

Relevant interests may include employment, consultancy, ownership interests, institutional relationships, close collaboration, personal relationships, academic rivalry, or other commitments directly relevant to the work.

Authors must identify funding sources, relevant grant references, and the funder’s role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, writing, and publication decisions.

Where no relevant competing interests or external funding exist, this must be stated.

Disclosure does not automatically disqualify a submission or participant. The journal determines appropriate management.

3.5 Peer Review and Citation Integrity

Reviewer impersonation, fabricated reports, undisclosed conflicts, citation trading, coercive citation, and other attempts to manipulate evaluation are prohibited.

References must identify genuine sources and support the associated claims. Authors must verify references rather than rely on unconfirmed bibliographic information.

Editors and reviewers must not demand irrelevant citations to increase personal or journal citation counts.

3.6 Copyright, Permissions, and Open Access

Authors must hold the necessary rights to submit and publish their work and obtain permissions for protected third-party materials where required.

Reuse of published articles is governed by the license identified by the journal and the article. Attribution does not replace permission when permission is required.

Open access does not remove obligations concerning copyright, privacy, confidentiality, or permitted reuse.

3.7 Publication Charges and Editorial Independence

Publication charges and applicable conditions must be publicly disclosed.

Payment, eligibility for a waiver, or receipt of a discount must not influence scholarly assessment. Authors affiliated with the journal or publisher must meet the same academic and ethical requirements as other authors.

Advertising, sponsorship, and commercial relationships must remain separate from editorial decisions.

3.8 Post-Publication Responsibility

Authors must promptly report significant errors and cooperate in correcting the record.

Readers may submit evidence-based concerns or comments. The journal will assess them fairly and consider clarification, correction, expressions of concern, or retraction where warranted.

4. Process for Dealing with Research Misconduct

4.1 Reporting a Concern

Concerns may be raised before or after publication by authors, reviewers, editors, readers, institutions, or other parties.

Reports should be sent to dr.keninstitute@gmail.com and identify:

The manuscript or article.
The specific concern.
Relevant evidence or supporting records.
Previous correspondence about the matter, where available.

Anonymous reports will be considered when sufficiently specific and credible.

Information will be handled discreetly and disclosed only as necessary for fair assessment, authorized investigation, or applicable legal obligations. Absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.

4.2 Preliminary Assessment and Independent Handling

The responsible editor will assess the concern’s relevance, credibility, and evidential basis.

Assessment may involve reviewing manuscript versions, references, similarity reports, publication records, reviewer information, ethics documentation, or other relevant materials.

Individuals implicated in a complaint must not control its assessment. Complaints concerning the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief will be referred to an uninvolved editor or an appropriately independent person arranged by the publisher.

Where specialist assessment is needed, the journal may seek advice from qualified individuals without relevant conflicts of interest.

4.3 Author Clarification and Evidence Review

Where further inquiry is warranted, the journal will:

Explain the specific concern to the corresponding author and contact other authors where appropriate.
Provide a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Request relevant evidence, such as original data, analysis records, ethics approvals, consent documentation, contribution records, or AI-use information.
Evaluate the response and seek additional expertise where necessary.
Maintain appropriate records of the assessment and decisions.

Review, acceptance, or publication may be suspended while substantial concerns remain unresolved.

Failure to respond may justify further inquiry but does not independently prove misconduct. Equally, an author’s assurance alone may be insufficient to resolve a concern unsupported by necessary records.

4.4 Institutional Referral

The journal assesses the reliability and suitability of material it publishes. Formal investigations into researcher conduct may require the authority and resources of institutions, employers, funders, or ethics bodies.

Where appropriate, the journal will refer concerns to those bodies and request relevant findings. It may coordinate with other journals or publishers where overlapping publication or systematic manipulation is suspected.

Editorial action may be necessary to protect readers while an institutional investigation remains incomplete.

4.5 Outcomes

Actions will depend on the available evidence, seriousness of the concern, and effect on the scholarly record.

Possible outcomes include:

Closing the case when the concern is unsupported or adequately resolved.
Requesting clarification, revision, additional disclosure, or supporting records.
Rejecting an unpublished manuscript.
Publishing a correction or expression of concern.
Retracting an article.
Informing relevant institutions or responsible bodies.
Improving editorial procedures where a process failure is identified.

Honest error will be distinguished from deliberate misconduct where the evidence permits. Both may require correction of the literature.

4.6 Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

Corrections: A correction is appropriate when an error affects accuracy or interpretation but does not invalidate the principal findings. The notice will describe the change and link to the article. An erratum or corrigendum may be used where appropriate.

Expressions of concern: A notice may be issued when substantial questions remain unresolved, evidence is inconclusive, or an investigation is delayed.

Retractions: Retraction may be appropriate when an article is unreliable because of major error, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, redundant publication, unethical research, compromised peer review, or another serious failure affecting its integrity.

The journal refers to the COPE Retraction Guidelines. Notices will identify the article, explain the reason and responsibility for the action, and link to the original publication.

Retracted articles will normally remain accessible and clearly marked. Exceptional removal may be necessary for legal, privacy, or serious safety reasons; an explanatory record will be retained where possible.

An author’s request alone does not justify removing a published article. Author disagreement does not prevent warranted editorial action.

Retraction protects the scholarly record and does not automatically constitute a disciplinary finding against every author.

4.7 Complaints and Appeals

Complaints about editorial conduct, peer review, or ethical procedures must identify the concern and provide supporting evidence.

Authors may appeal decisions by identifying factual errors, procedural concerns, or substantive evidence that merits reconsideration. Disagreement alone does not establish grounds for reversal.

An uninvolved person will assess the matter where appropriate. The journal will communicate outcomes and reasons to relevant parties, subject to confidentiality and ongoing investigations.

External referral may be appropriate when a matter falls within the remit of an institution or other competent body. Such referral depends on that body’s jurisdiction and procedures.

Credible concerns about previously published work will be assessed regardless of the time elapsed since publication.

5. Ethical Guidelines for Using AI in Academic Writing

5.1 Human Responsibility

IARJ permits responsible AI assistance when its use is transparent, appropriate to the task, and subject to meaningful human oversight.

Authors remain responsible for accuracy, originality, analysis, interpretation, references, permissions, and ethical compliance.

AI tools cannot be listed as authors because they cannot approve the final manuscript, disclose competing interests, or accept accountability.

5.2 Permitted Assistance

AI may assist with language editing, translation, readability, organization, coding, or other clearly described tasks.

Authors must review the output and ensure that assistance does not distort the research, conceal uncertainty, or replace necessary intellectual contribution and scholarly judgment.

When AI is part of the research method, authors must describe its role, relevant settings, validation, and limitations in the Methods section.

5.3 Disclosure Requirements

Material generative AI use in drafting, substantive rewriting, translation, coding, analysis, interpretation, or preparation of figures and other content must be disclosed.

A declaration must appear before the References under “Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies.” It should identify:

The tool and provider.
The model or version, where available.
The purpose and extent of use.
The affected sections or research activities.
The human verification undertaken.

Research-related use must also be reported in the Methods section.

Routine non-generative spelling, punctuation, and reference-formatting checks do not require disclosure. Generative rewriting or translation must be disclosed even when provided through a standard editing application.

Example declaration:

“During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [tool, provider, model/version] to [describe purpose and affected sections]. The authors reviewed and verified the resulting content, checked the cited sources, and revised the manuscript as necessary. The authors take full responsibility for the final content.”

Where applicable:

“The authors did not use generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in preparing this manuscript.”

5.4 Supporting Records

Authors should retain records sufficient to explain material AI use, including relevant prompts, outputs, settings, and human revisions where appropriate.

The journal may request these records to assess the work. Personal, confidential, copyrighted, and restricted information must be protected when records are supplied.

Authors must explain their own contribution and the procedures used to verify AI-assisted material.

5.5 Prohibited Uses

AI must not be used to:

Fabricate data, participant responses, quotations, references, ethics approvals, or research activities.
Present generated material as authentic empirical evidence.
Produce misleading images, recordings, analyses, or conclusions.
Conceal plagiarism or evade journal requirements.
Create fictitious authors, reviewers, or review reports.
Insert hidden instructions intended to manipulate screening or peer review.
Misrepresent work that was not performed.

Clearly labeled synthetic data or generated materials may be considered when they are legitimate components of the research design and are transparently described and validated.

5.6 Verification, Privacy, and Confidentiality

Authors must verify AI-assisted claims, quotations, calculations, code, and references against original sources or appropriate validation procedures.

They must assess possible bias, unsupported generalizations, copyright concerns, and distortion of participants’ meaning.

Identifiable participant information, confidential organizational records, restricted datasets, and unpublished third-party work must not be uploaded to AI services without appropriate authorization and safeguards.

Authors must consider consent restrictions, institutional requirements, data retention, access controls, and possible reuse by the service provider.

5.7 AI Use by Reviewers, Editors, and the Publisher

Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts, supplementary files, review reports, or confidential correspondence to external AI systems unless the journal has authorized the use and appropriate confidentiality protections and necessary permissions are in place.

Reviewers must not delegate their scholarly assessment to AI. Authorized substantive assistance must be disclosed to the handling editor.

Editors and the publisher remain accountable for editorial judgments and must transparently describe material AI use in the publication process.

Automated tools may support screening but must not serve as the sole basis for acceptance, rejection, or a misconduct finding.

5.8 Suspected AI Misuse

AI-detection scores and writing style alone do not establish misconduct.

The journal may request explanations, drafts, source records, or other relevant evidence and will assess concerns through the procedures in Section 4.

Missing disclosure may require clarification or correction. Fabrication, confidentiality breaches, deceptive reporting, or other serious misuse may lead to rejection, post-publication action, or institutional referral.

Related Journal Information

Editorial Office: Interdisciplinary Academic and Research Journal (IARJ)
Publisher: DR.KEN Institute of Academic Development and Promotion, Thailand
Email: dr.keninstitute@gmail.com

###Updated on October 29, 2026, adapted from TCI###