Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics
Siam University Journal of Business Administration believes that strictly adhering to the ethics of publishing academic journals will enable the presentation of high-quality, academically sound and credible academic works. Therefore, the principles of ethics for publishing academic works of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which is a body registered in the United Kingdom, have been applied to the process of publishing academic works. All involved in this process, including authors, editors and reviewers, must study and understand their roles and responsibilities and commit to strictly complying with the ethics of publishing academic journals.

Ethics for Authors

Duties of Authors

1. Authors must present accurate and truthful data and findings, state their significance and benefits, and provide sufficient information to allow for verification or replication.
2. Authors must certify the originality of the work and certify their rights over the work to be published so that no one can claim or dispute the rights to such work.
3. The author must certify that the work or any part of the work to be published has never been published or published in any way before.
4. The author must clearly report the use of the work of others. Such reporting must be done correctly and appropriately according to the format and must always include a bibliography at the end of the article.
5. The author must not use information obtained unethically, through corruption or illegally.
6. The author must study and understand the regulations for submitting articles and preparing manuscripts for consideration for publication in the “Siam University Journal of Business Administration” journal and strictly comply with them.
7. The list of authors must be limited to those who have significantly contributed to the creation of the work. Other supporters may be stated in the Acknowledgements section.
8. If the work to be published is funded in whole or in part, the author must state the source of the funding.
9. The author must be careful not to create conflicts of interest, benefits, favors or reciprocal benefits. In this regard, the author must disclose the financial supporters. Or those who support in other ways, including revealing individuals or organizations that have a personal relationship with the author, which may be seen as being able to influence or be able to cause bias in the results or findings.
Ethics for editors

Ethics for Editors

Duties of Editors

1. The editor is responsible for checking the quality and assessing the accuracy at every step before publishing any work in their journal.
2. Editors must perform their duties transparently, impartially, and without any bias.
3. Editors must treat submitted work fairly, straightforwardly, and without bias. They must also control the time period of each step appropriately.
4. Editors must keep the confidentiality of the quality assessment of the work. Editors will not disclose information about the author, information about the article reviewers, and the quality assessment results to unrelated persons. During the quality assessment period, article reviewers cannot access the author's information, and authors cannot access the information about the article reviewers either.
5. Editors must select works for publication based on information obtained from the article reviewers' quality assessment, the journal's publication policy, originality, timeliness, accuracy, proof, empirical evidence, and the rights over the author's work. Such selection must be done impartially, without the influence of the authors, article reviewers, journal sponsors, administrators, journal owners, or any influence. Rejection must be justified and cannot be done simply because the editors are suspicious, doubtful, or uncertain.
6. Editors must not accept works that have been published or disseminated in other ways for consideration.
7. Editors must have methods to check and take action against academic misconduct, such as plagiarism, copying works, or disputes over the rights to the works. If any academic misconduct is found, the editor must immediately stop the quality assessment process and immediately notify the authors to request an explanation, explanation, or evidence. The quality assessment process will continue. Acceptance, rejection, or cancellation depends on the facts and evidence that are presented.
8. Editors must provide channels for authors to appeal the results of the article quality assessment or the editors' decisions.

Ethics for Reviewers

Duties of Reviewers

1. Reviewers must act as good friends, be sincere, and help improve, improve, or develop the quality of the work they consider. Any opinions or advice to the author must be supported by theory, principles, or academic evidence. Do not use guesswork or personal beliefs to judge the work they accept for consideration.
2. Reviewers must use their full knowledge and skills, be meticulous, and spend appropriate time evaluating the article. Article evaluation must give importance to reliable information, quality methods, and content or findings of the article that are valuable to the academic community. Reviewers must not accept the evaluation of work in areas in which they are not skilled or familiar.
3. Reviewers must give importance to the author's literature review. If they see that the author has not specified or cited outstanding or important work in the field that is related to the article being evaluated, the reviewer must recommend that work to the author, along with reasons for its relevance or importance.
4. Reviewers must not disclose any information, methods, or content of the author or that is in the article to unrelated persons during the article quality evaluation period.
5. The reviewer must immediately inform the editor and decline to evaluate an article if he or she finds that he or she may have a conflict of interest or is in any other position that prevents him or her from expressing his or her opinion independently.
6. The reviewer must inform the editor if he or she finds that the entire or partial work being evaluated is similar or identical to another work.