Publication Ethics

The Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences, and Arts is an academic journal of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at Udon Thani Rajabhat University. It has established publication ethics guidelines that align with the ethical standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). These guidelines outline the roles and responsibilities of Editors, Reviewers, Authors, and Readers. The journal expects all parties involved in its operations to adhere to their designated roles according to these guidelines. This is to ensure that the journal's operations are conducted in a transparent and credible manner for the academic community.

 

Roles and Responsibilities of the Editors:

          The Editorial Board consists of an Advising Editor, an Editor, and Section Editors who have the following roles and responsibilities in operating the journal:

          1. Advising Editor:

             1.1 Study research and academic works related to the fields of humanities and social sciences that fall under the journal's defined scope. This includes studying the direction for developing the quality of Thai journals in order to continuously improve and develop the quality of the Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences, and Arts.

            1.2 Provide consultation, promote, and support resources for operating the journal to meet the standards set by the Thai Journal Citation Index Centre (TCI).

        2. Editor:

            2.1 Prepare guidelines for authors, initial criteria for article consideration, article writing format, and guidelines for writing references that meet international standards. These should be published on the website.

          2.2 Consider the types of articles, the journal's scope, and initial article format requirements, while avoiding any conflicts of interest.

          2.3 Check for plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, in the articles. Any articles found to contain plagiarism should be immediately rejected.

         2.4 Assign Section Editors from the Editorial Board to oversee, supervise, and monitor the quality assessment process for each article in a transparent and verifiable manner.

        2.5 Track that peer reviewers evaluate articles within the specified timeframe.

        2.6 Make decisions on article acceptance based on the reviewer evaluations, as follows:

                     (1) Accepted for publication, which requires positive evaluations from at least 2 out of the 3 peer reviewers through the quality assessment process.

                     (2) Rejected, which requires at least 2 peer reviewers to reject publication, with justification provided to the authors.

         2.7 If authors dispute the evaluation results with evidence, the Editor must bring this to the Editorial Board for joint consideration and notify the authors of the decision.

        2.8 The Editor must carefully review articles for completeness before compiling the journal issue and publishing via the ThaIjo system, strictly adhering to the publication schedule.

       2.9 If any errors occur due to the Editor's negligence of duties, the Editor must take responsibility.

   3. Section Editor:

         3.1 The Section Editors must oversee the quality assessment process for the articles assigned to them, provide suggestions for improving the article quality, and make recommendations to the Editor on acceptance decisions.

         3.2 Convene meetings and plan the journal operations, prepare author guidelines, initial article screening criteria, article writing format, international reference writing standards, article evaluation forms, and continuously improve the journal quality.

         3.3 Screen, recruit, select and assign articles to subject-matter expert reviewers for evaluation of high-quality, academically beneficial articles for authors and readers.

         3.4 Supervise the academic journal quality to meet the criteria of the Thai Journal Citation Index Centre (TCI).

         3.5 Convene meetings to make decisions on articles where authors dispute the evaluations, adhering to publication ethics standards for academic journals.

 

Roles and Responsibilities of Reviewers

  1. Consider the review timeline and select articles within their field of expertise, while avoiding any conflicts of interest
  2. Evaluate article quality according to academic standards and aim to develop the journal's quality in accordance with Thai-Journal Citation Index Centre (TCI) criteria
  3. Review articles and submit evaluations within the specified timeframe, providing academically beneficial suggestions for both authors and readers
  4. Summarize article evaluation results as: (1) Accept for publication (2) Revisions required (3) Resubmit for another review, and (4) Reject publication

 

Roles and Responsibilities of Authors

  1. Consider article type, journal scope, and article format requirements thoroughly, verifying that the content meets the journal's preliminary criteria
  2. If submitting an article, ensure it is not under consideration by other journals or conferences, and no part of it (abstract, research results, or full article) has been previously published in journals or conference proceedings
  3. Authors must not plagiarize others' work (Plagiarism) or their own work (Self-plagiarism)
  4. If research articles have human or animal research ethics committee approval from relevant organizations, authors must specify this in the "Research Methodology" section
  5. Article submission must follow journal procedures; if in doubt about journal operations, contact the journal before submitting through the Thaijo system
  6. Authors may dispute article evaluation results with clear evidence, explaining to the editor for reconsideration
  7. Authors must monitor their article through the Thaijo system until the journal process is complete
 

Roles and responsibilities of the Readers:

        1. Readers can read the abstracts and download full articles through the ThaIjo system.

        2. If any part of an article from the journal is used, readers must properly cite the article information.

       3. If readers find any plagiarism or self-plagiarism in published articles in the Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences, and Arts, they should notify the journal staff so it can be investigated again. This is for the benefit of the academic community and to continuously improve the journal's quality.

 

Article Quality Evaluation

       1. Articles submitted will undergo a quality evaluation by 3 expert peer reviewers in the relevant field from various institutions. This is done as a double-blind review, where the identities of the authors, reviewers, and those involved are concealed.

       2. The timeframe for the article quality evaluation follows the journal's established procedures.

       3. Decisions on article acceptance are based on the reviewer evaluations as follows:

           3.1 Accepted for publication, which requires positive evaluations from at least 2 out of the 3 peer reviewers through the quality assessment process.

           3.2 Rejected, which requires at least 2 peer reviewers to reject publication, with justification provided to the authors.

       4. Authors can dispute the quality evaluation decision, but must provide clear evidence to explain to the Editor and Editorial Board. The quality evaluation decision can be changed if the disputing evidence is clear and approved by the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board's decision is final.