Publication ethics

Publication Ethics

    Samutprakan hospital journal aims to enhance quality of and publish medical or public health research in Thailand.     

           Duties for concerned parties in Samutprakan hospital journal features three groups, namely authors, editors, and reviewers, who shall comply with regulations on duties as detailed below. 

Duties of Authors

  1. Authors must obtain from the co-author(s), if any, their approval for the manuscript submission.
  2. Authors shall be held accountable for the copyright of the original article in all cases.
  3. Authors whose names appear in the article should be actively involved in the research work.
  4. Authors must certify that their manuscript is their original work and has not been previously published elsewhere.
  5. Authors must report the research work honestly without any fabrication, falsification or data manipulation.
  6. Authors must check their work thoroughly to ensure that all details of the manuscript to be published in the journal are correct and comply with international ethics standards.
  7. Authors must accept criticism and can respond to that with additional details where needed.
  8. Authors must refer to the works of other authors. Providing that such works are being used in the authors’ work, they must write a reference according to the referencing style guide in “Manuscript Preparation”.
  9. Authors must write the manuscript correctly according to the format guide in “Manuscript Preparation”.


Duties of Editors

  1. Editors are responsible for evaluating the quality of a manuscript for publication in the journal.
  2. Editors must perform all duties carefully to certify the quality of a manuscript being published bearing in mind that the journal has the clearly-defined goals and standards.
  3. Editors must justify or supply any information relevant to peer review processes and must be well-prepared to justify any potential deviation from peer review processes.
  4. Editors must perform and complete all tasks of the journal within the specific period for publication
  5. Editors must decide to accept or reject a manuscript for publication.
  6. Editors must allow authors to issue an appeal providing that authors hold different opinions from editors.
  7. Editors must not disclose any information of authors and reviewers to other parties who are not involved in any stage of paper evaluation whatsoever.
  8. Editors must not reject a paper for publication solely on the basis of their suspicion or uncertainty; they must supply sound evidence to justify such doubt.
  9. Editors must not reverse a decision to accept a paper which has been rejected.
  10. Editors must check a paper for any plagiarism of other works.
  11. In the event that editors are changed, newly-appointed editors must not reverse a decision to accept a paper which has been previously rejected by the former editors, unless proven appropriately and clearly.
  12. Providing that editors detect any plagiarism of other works during the evaluation process, they must halt the evaluation processes and contact authors spontaneously to request clarification or justification for consideration of paper acceptance or rejection.
  13. Editors must not publish a paper which has been previously published elsewhere.
  14. Editors must have a management system which is not in conflict of interest with authors and reviewers as well as the editorial board.
  15. Editors must support freedom of expression, maintain the correctness of the scholarly work and protect the intellectual property standards.

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Reviewers must be supplied with a personal information protection system, except for the open evaluation of which authors and reviewers have been informed beforehand.
  2. Reviewers must be supplied with a system which ensures that a paper sent for reviews is kept confidential during the evaluation process.
  3. Reviewers must protect confidentiality and not disclose any information of a paper sent for consideration to uninvolved parties during the evaluation process.
  4. After receiving a paper from editors, should reviewers realize that they are in conflict of interest with authors, e.g. participating in a project or being acquainted with authors or any other reasons which potentially interferes with unbiased or objective expression of thoughts, reviewers ought to report to editors and refuse to evaluate such a paper.
  5. Reviewers must be fully aware of recommendations in all areas expected by editors and of revisions of recommendation which can relate or connect with such regulations.
  6. Reviewers must evaluate a paper in their field of specialization based on the significance of the contents, the quality of analysis and the depth of the work itself.
  7. Reviewers must not evaluate a paper on the basis of their subjective opinions without justifiable evidence as criteria for judging the paper.
  8. Should reviewers realize that any part of a paper is similar to or overlaps other works, they must report to editors.