Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews (IJSASR)
ISSN 2985-2730 (Online)
Publisher: DR.KEN Institute of Academic Development and Promotion, Thailand

The International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews (IJSASR) is committed to academic integrity, editorial independence, transparency, fairness, and accountability throughout the publication process.

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 uses relevant COPE guidance and flowcharts to address publication ethics 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 manuscript evaluation, reviewer selection, or decisions concerning acceptance, revision, rejection, correction, expressions of concern, and retraction.
Ensure that publication fees, advertising, sponsorship, and other commercial interests do not influence editorial decisions.
Support the maintenance of a reliable publishing platform, accessible journal policies, appropriate confidentiality safeguards, and preservation of the scholarly record.
Provide administrative and technical support for ethical publishing and the handling of complaints.
Cooperate with editors and relevant institutions in addressing credible concerns about published or submitted work.
Ensure that information about ownership, management, fees, licensing, and publishing arrangements is accurate and publicly available.

1.2 Responsibilities of Editors and the Editorial Board

The Editor-in-Chief and editorial board must:

Evaluate manuscripts according to scholarly contribution, originality, methodological quality, clarity, ethical adequacy, and relevance to the journal’s applicable aims and scope.
Make decisions fairly, without discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, political beliefs, institutional affiliation, or other characteristics unrelated to the work.
Conduct initial screening and arrange double-blind peer review by two or three appropriately qualified reviewers for manuscripts proceeding to external evaluation.
Select credible, independent reviewers and take reasonable steps to identify conflicts of interest and prevent reviewer impersonation or manipulation.
Maintain confidentiality concerning manuscripts, supporting documents, reviewer reports, personal information, and editorial correspondence.
Disclose competing interests and withdraw from handling manuscripts where 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. Authors holding journal positions must not participate in evaluating their own submissions.
Consider reviewer recommendations and exercise independent scholarly judgment in making the final decision.
Request clarification, revisions, original data, ethics documentation, permissions, or other supporting records when necessary.
Issue acceptance letters only after the required evaluation has been completed and an acceptance decision has been made.
Address complaints and suspected misconduct fairly, including concerns about previously published articles.
Publish and maintain clear editorial policies and communicate substantive policy changes before implementation.
Preserve the integrity of published content through documented corrections and other appropriate notices rather than silent alteration.

Editors and editorial staff must not use unpublished information acquired through their duties for personal or professional advantage. Confidential information may be shared only when necessary for authorized editorial work, a legitimate ethics inquiry, or applicable legal obligations.

1.3 Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must:

Accept assignments only when they possess suitable expertise and can complete the review within the agreed period.
Disclose relevant competing interests and decline or withdraw when independent assessment is compromised.
Provide objective, respectful, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations.
Assess the manuscript’s contribution, methods, analysis, interpretation, references, and ethical adequacy.
Maintain confidentiality during and after review. Manuscripts must not be shared with colleagues, students, or other parties without editorial authorization.
Refrain from using unpublished ideas, data, or findings for personal benefit or the benefit of others.
Notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, substantial overlap, questionable data, missing ethics approval, or other concerns, identifying the relevant evidence where possible.
Recommend citations only when academically justified. Requests intended to increase personal or journal citation counts are inappropriate.
Inform the editorial office promptly if delays arise.
Comply with the AI requirements in Section 5 and remain responsible for the content of their reviews.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly about a manuscript or conduct independent investigations involving participants or institutions.

1.4 Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must:

Follow the journal’s submission requirements and submit original work that is not simultaneously under consideration elsewhere.
Report research procedures, evidence, results, interpretations, and limitations honestly and accurately.
Avoid plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, misleading manipulation, redundant publication, and attempts to influence peer review improperly.
Provide accurate author names, affiliations, and contact details.
Agree on authorship, author order, and contributions before submission.
Ensure that all listed authors have made substantial scholarly contributions, participated in drafting or critical intellectual revision, approved the final manuscript, agreed to submission and publication, and accepted accountability for the work.
Exclude ghost, guest, gift, honorary, and purchased authorship. Position, seniority, funding acquisition, supervision, or language assistance alone does not establish authorship eligibility.
Describe contributions using the CRediT contributor roles in accordance with the journal’s Author Instructions. CRediT records contributions and does not independently establish authorship eligibility.
Acknowledge non-author assistance appropriately and obtain permission from individuals named in acknowledgments.
Designate a corresponding author to coordinate communication and confirm all authors’ approval of submissions, revisions, and the final version.
Disclose funding, relevant competing interests, and the funder’s role in the research and publication process.
Obtain required ethics approvals, informed consent, permissions, and rights to use third-party materials.
Retain research records according to applicable institutional, funder, and legal requirements and provide supporting evidence for legitimate editorial inquiries, subject to confidentiality safeguards.
Disclose AI use as required in Section 5.
Notify the journal promptly of significant errors and cooperate with clarification, correction, and investigation procedures.

Any request to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must include an explanation and written agreement from all affected authors. Processing may be suspended while an authorship dispute is referred to the relevant institution.

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

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

Institutional access permission does not replace independent ethics review or individual informed consent where these are required.

2.2 Informed Consent and Protection from Harm

Participation must be voluntary and based on understandable information about the study’s purpose, procedures, foreseeable risks, data use, confidentiality, and applicable withdrawal arrangements.

Authors must:

Obtain and document informed consent unless an authorized ethics body has approved a waiver.
Prevent coercion, undue influence, and avoidable harm.
Explain incentives and ensure that they do not compromise voluntary participation.
Respect participants’ decisions to decline or withdraw under the approved research arrangements.
Protect participants against foreseeable social, economic, professional, reputational, and psychological harm.

Research concerning political opinions, workplace behavior, sensitive community matters, or other potentially consequential topics requires particular attention to the risks of identification and disclosure.

2.3 Vulnerable Participants and Unequal Power Relationships

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

Relevant circumstances may include research involving children, persons with limited decision-making capacity, prisoners, economically disadvantaged participants, employees, students, or persons dependent on services provided by the researcher’s organization.

Authors must explain:

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

Permission from community leaders, employers, teachers, or public officials does not substitute for individual consent where required.

2.4 Privacy, Confidentiality, and Identifiable Material

Authors must minimize the collection and disclosure of identifiable information and use appropriate storage, access controls, anonymization, or pseudonymization.

Removing names may be insufficient when individuals remain identifiable through job titles, locations, organizational roles, quotations, or combinations of contextual details.

Explicit written consent for publication must be obtained when identifiable personal information is to be published. Consent to participate does not automatically authorize publication of identifiable photographs, recordings, quotations, or case descriptions.

Public accessibility of online material does not automatically remove ethical responsibilities concerning its collection, analysis, and publication.

2.5 Required Ethics Statement and Documentation

Authors must complete the Ethics Statement in the journal’s template, providing the approving body and approval number where applicable. Briefly describe consent procedures and measures protecting participants’ rights, privacy, and confidentiality as appropriate, particularly for vulnerable groups. Publication consent should be indicated where identifiable material is included.

If ethics approval was exempted or not required, briefly explain the basis. The journal may request supporting documents when necessary. These should be supplied securely with unnecessary personal information redacted.

Where prior ethics approval is required, it must be obtained before the research begins. A retrospective ethics statement does not replace that approval.

3. Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

3.1 Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must distinguish their contributions from the work of others and provide appropriate acknowledgment.

Plagiarism includes unattributed copying, close paraphrasing, appropriation of ideas or data, and unauthorized translation of another person’s work. Substantial reuse of previously published material, including the authors’ own work, must be disclosed and appropriately cited.

The journal may use similarity-screening tools. Similarity scores require contextual assessment and do not independently establish plagiarism.

3.2 Duplicate Submission and Overlapping Publication

Simultaneous submission of the same or substantially similar work to multiple journals is prohibited.

Authors must disclose related publications, manuscripts, preprints, conference papers, theses, or reports and explain any overlap. Their acceptability will be assessed under the journal’s submission policies.

Dividing one study into multiple publications without sufficient scholarly justification, concealing substantial overlap, or presenting previously published findings as new is unacceptable.

3.3 Data Integrity and Transparent Reporting

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

Authors must describe methods and analytical decisions sufficiently for readers to assess the work. Observed evidence must be distinguished from simulation, interpretation, and speculation.

Important limitations, missing data, exclusions, and deviations from planned procedures must be reported when relevant to the findings.

3.4 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. Transparency does not require disclosure that would violate participant consent, confidentiality, intellectual property, or other applicable obligations.

3.5 Competing Interests and Funding

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

Relevant interests may include employment, consultancy, financial interests, institutional relationships, close collaboration, personal relationships, academic rivalry, or political and organizational commitments directly relevant to the work.

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

Where there are no relevant competing interests or external funding, this must be stated. Disclosure does not automatically disqualify a manuscript or participant; the journal determines appropriate management.

3.6 Peer Review and Citation Integrity

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

References must correspond to genuine sources and support the associated claims. Authors must not cite publications they have not adequately verified or include references solely to increase citation counts.

Editors and reviewers must not require irrelevant citations as a condition of acceptance.

3.7 Copyright, Licensing, and Publication Charges

Authors must have the necessary rights to publish their submissions and obtain permissions for protected materials where required.

Published content may be reused under the licensing terms stated by the journal and the relevant article. Attribution does not replace permission when permission is required.

Any publication charges, exemptions, and applicable conditions must be publicly disclosed. Payment does not guarantee acceptance and must not influence scholarly evaluation.

3.8 Post-Publication Responsibility

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

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

4. Process for Dealing with Research Misconduct

4.1 Reporting Concerns

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

Reports should be sent to dr.keninstitute@gmail.com, identifying the manuscript or article, describing the concern, and providing relevant evidence.

Anonymous reports will be considered when sufficiently specific and credible. Information will be handled discreetly and shared only as necessary for a fair assessment, authorized investigation, or applicable legal obligation.

4.2 Preliminary Assessment

The responsible editor will determine whether the concern is relevant, credible, and sufficiently supported to warrant further inquiry.

Assessment may involve reviewing manuscript versions, publication records, references, similarity reports, reviewer information, ethics documents, and other available evidence.

A person implicated in a complaint must not control its assessment. Complaints concerning an editor will be assigned to an uninvolved editor or an appropriately independent person arranged by the publisher.

4.3 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 independent 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 establish misconduct.

4.4 Institutional Referral

The journal assesses the reliability and suitability of the material it publishes. Formal investigations into researcher conduct may require institutional authority and access to records beyond the journal’s resources.

Where appropriate, concerns will be referred to institutions, employers, funders, ethics committees, or other responsible bodies. The journal may also coordinate with other publishers when overlapping publication or systematic manipulation is suspected.

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

4.5 Decisions and Outcomes

Actions will depend on the evidence, seriousness of the concern, and effect on the scholarly record. Outcomes may 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.
Notifying relevant institutions or responsible bodies.

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 explain 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 findings are unreliable because of major error, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, redundant publication, unethical research, compromised peer review, or another serious failure affecting the article’s integrity.

The journal refers to the COPE Retraction Guidelines. Retraction 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 justified editorial action. Retraction protects the scholarly record and does not automatically constitute a disciplinary finding against every author.

4.7 Complaints and Appeals

Authors may appeal decisions by identifying factual errors, procedural concerns, or relevant evidence that merits reconsideration.

Appeals must provide reasons and supporting information rather than disagreement alone. 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. An appeal does not guarantee reversal.

5. Ethical Guidelines for Using AI in Academic Writing

5.1 Human Responsibility

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

Authors remain accountable for accuracy, originality, interpretation, references, permissions, and ethical compliance. AI output must not be assumed to be reliable or unbiased.

AI tools cannot be listed as authors because they cannot approve a manuscript, disclose competing interests, or accept responsibility for the work.

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 or replace necessary intellectual contribution and scholarly judgment.

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

5.3 Disclosure Requirements

Generative AI use that materially contributes to drafting, substantive rewriting, translation, coding, analysis, interpretation, or preparation of figures and other content must be disclosed.

Authors must include a statement before the references under “Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies.” The statement must 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, or 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 when necessary to assess the manuscript. Records must be supplied through appropriate safeguards, with personal, confidential, or restricted information protected.

Authors must explain their intellectual contribution and how they verified AI-assisted material.

5.5 Prohibited Uses

AI must not be used to:

Fabricate data, participant responses, interview 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 editorial screening or peer review.
Replace author accountability or 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 and Confidentiality

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

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

Identifiable participant information, confidential organizational records, restricted data, or unpublished third-party work must not be uploaded to AI services without appropriate authorization and safeguards. Authors must consider consent restrictions, access controls, data retention, and possible reuse by the service provider.

5.7 AI Use in Peer Review and Editorial Work

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 responsible for editorial judgments and must transparently describe material AI use in the publication process. Automated screening may support assessment but must not be the sole basis for acceptance, rejection, or a misconduct finding.

5.8 Suspected Misuse

AI-detection scores and writing style alone do not establish misconduct. The journal will assess concerns using relevant evidence and 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: International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews (IJSASR)
Publisher: DR.KEN Institute of Academic Development and Promotion, Thailand
Email: dr.keninstitute@gmail.com

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