Publication Ethics in the Journal of MCU: Social Science Review:

Duties of Editor

1. Editor has duty to control and administer the Journal business smoothly in line with the criteria set by Thai Citation Index Center

2. Editor must practice according to the Code of Ethics or use academic reasons to consider the article without any biases or interest with the article authors.

3. Editor must accept the evaluation results from the peer reviewers, by not revise or change contents, except the peer reviewers recommend to do so.

4. Editor must not have conflict of interest with the article authors

5. Editor must not use his or her power to dominate the peer reviewers to evaluate the article the way he or she wants it to be.

6. Editor should not acknowledge the receipt of the article that has not been evaluated by the peer reviewers.

7. Editor must check the duplication of the article seriously by using the reliable plagiarism checker to be sure that the article to be printed in the Journal does not pirate the other’s copyright.

8. Editor must stop the evaluation process immediately when the infringement of copyright is found and must inform the article authors immediately. If the article authors do not act according to the editor’s suggestion, the editor has the right to refuse the printing of that article immediately.

9. Editor must strictly select the peer reviewers who have direct knowledge and expertise of that article.

Duties of peer reviewers

1. The peer reviewers must consider the quality of the article as the main criteria by academic standard and the objectives of the Journal and strictly follow standard of the Journal without any biases

2. The peer reviewers must adhere to the code of ethics, do not reveal the results of evaluation to any organizations or other people

3. The peer reviewers must not use any part of the article for his or her own use without permission from the article owner or from the Journal

4. The peer reviewers must have knowledge, skill and clear understanding the content to be evaluated. If not the peer reviewers can refuse the evaluation and let the editor know the reason.

5. The peer reviewers must inform the editor immediately if the duplication of the content or the content of the article is similar to others’ articles is found

6. The peer reviewers must strictly follow the evaluation format. If there is any suggestion beyond the content evaluated, they can clearly submit the suggestion in writing.

7. The peer reviewers must not have conflict of interest or mutual interest with the article authors. If found later, the result of evaluation can be cancelled and the editor reserves the right not to send the article to that peer reviewer for evaluation again.

8. The peer reviewer must evaluate the article within the time frame set by the Journal and send the result to the Journal within 7 days from the day the article is received.