Journal Ethical Standards for Journal of Science Innovation for Sustainable Development

(abbreviation: J. Sci. Innov. Sustain. Dev.)

       1. Duties and Responsibilities of Editor

Editors should be responsible for everything published in the journal, including:

       a. Proceeding as the purposes of both readers and author(s).

       b. Updating the journal regularly.

       c. Ensuring the quality of published research articles.

       d. Supporting the freedom of expression.

       e. Preserving the accuracy of academic works.

       f. Protecting the intellectual property standards in response to business needs.

       g. Willing to rectify the publishing errors, clarification, retract or withdraw articles and apologize if necessary.

       2. Duties of Editor to Reader(s)

Editors are obliged to inform the readers about research funding sources and the roles of research funder in conducting that particular study.

      3. Duties of Editor to Author(s)

Editors are obliged to ensure the quality of the published articles and researches, and also assure that each section of the journal have different objectives and standards.

Editors are obliged to decide to accept or reject the research articles for publication based on the significance, to keep novelty and clarity of the research articles as well as its relevance to the scope of the journal.

Authors should be clarified or informed about the peer review processes. Additionally, editors should be prepared to address any deviations from the specified review process.

Editors are obliged to establish an additional way for authors to appeal if they differ from the editor's decision.

Editors are obliged to publish instructions for authors on all issues expected, ensuring authors are well-informed. Recommendations should be updated regularly, and references or links to these guidelines should be included.

Editors are obliged not to alter their decision to accept articles that have previously been rejected for publication, unless a serious issue arises during the article submission and review process.

New editors are obliged not to reverse the decision to publish the articles that had been rejected by the previous editors unless there is evidence of serious issues occurring.

      4. Duties of Editors to Reviewer(s)

Editors are obliged to publish instructions to the reviewers on all aspects anticipated by the editors. These instructions should be regularly updated and accompanied by references or links to the specified regulations.

Editors are obliged to establish a system to protect the privacy of reviewers, except in cases of the journal operates under an open peer review publishing and has informed authors and reviewers in advance.

       5. Article Evaluation Process

Editors are obliged to have a system in order to ensure that articles submitted to the journal will be treated confidentially during the peer review process.

       6. Complaints Process

Editors are obliged to follow the procedures outlined in the workflow chart specified by the Publication Ethics Committee.

Editors are obliged to promptly respond to complaints and assure complainants that they can submit further appeals if dissatisfied. This mechanism should be clearly outlined in the journal and should include information on how to escalate unresolved issues to the Publication Ethics Committee.

      7. Facilitating Discussion

Editors are obligated to disclose any critiques of published articles in journals, unless the editors have some substantiated reasons for withholding the review.

Authors should be given the opportunity to respond to critiques from others. Furthermore, research studies that contradict previously published articles should also be afforded the same opportunity.

      8. Supporting Academic Accuracy

Editors are obliged to ensure that every detail in the published research articles in the journal adheres to internationally accepted ethical standards.

Editors should seek evidence to ensure that every piece of research intended for publication has been approved and endorsed by the authorized individuals or bodies (such as the Research Ethics Committee, Institutional Review Board, etc.). Nevertheless, the editorial board should always be mindful that approval does not guarantee the inherent ethical integrity of the research.

      9. Protection of Personal Information

Editors are obliged to protect the confidentiality of personal information (such as patient-doctor relationships, etc.). Editors must obtain written consent from the patient if the patient's name or picture appears in the report or article. However, editors can publish articles without written consent if the following three conditions are met:

        a. The article is important to public health (or is important in some matters).

        b. The article faces difficulty obtaining consent documents.

        c. The person has no objection to its publication.

   10. Misconduct Monitoring

Editors are obliged to monitor misconduct in cases of suspicion, encompassing both published and unpublished research articles.

Editors should not immediately reject research articles that may raise concerns of misconduct. It is the responsibility of the editorial board to investigate research articles accused of misconduct in order to determine the facts.

Editors are obliged to seek responses from individuals accused before making a final decision. If unsatisfied with the received responses, further inquiries should be directed to the head or relevant authority (which may be an entity responsible for regulations) to thoroughly investigate the matter.

Editors should follow the procedures outlined in the ethical guidelines of the Publication Ethics Committee whenever it becomes necessary.

Editors should endeavor to guarantee that fact-checking has been conducted accurately based on evidence and reasoning. However, if such measures have not been taken, the editors should diligently seek solutions to address the issue, acknowledging that it is a challenging but crucial responsibility.

    11. Authentication of academic articles

Editors are obliged to promptly and clearly correct any inaccuracies in published academic articles, including sentences that may lead to misunderstandings or reports that distort the facts.

If instances of misconduct are identified after the thorough investigation, the editors must proceed to retract the article with clear evidence to substantiate the action. This retraction should be communicated to readers and other databases.

    12. Relations with Journal Owner and Publisher

Editors' relationships with publishers and journal owners are often complex. Nevertheless, it should be grounded in the editorial independence. Regardless of the economic and political realities of the journal, editors should make decisions regarding article acceptance based on quality and relevance to readers, prioritizing these financial or political considerations.

    13. Commercial Relevant in Editorial Decisions

Editors are obliged to announce policies regarding to advertising that emphasize the substantive content of the journal, including publishing any supplementary or additional sections.

Editors are obliged to not publish advertisements that may be misleading and must be willing to publish various criticisms. However, the same criteria must be adhered equivalent to various parts of the journal.

Editors must refrain from publishing advertisements that may cause misunderstandings and should be open to publishing diverse critiques. The same criteria must be applied across various sections of the journal. Furthermore, when republishing original articles, they must maintain the original nature in all aspects, making necessary modifications when required.

    14. Conflict of Interest

Editors are obliged to Editors are obligated to implement a conflict of interest management system, applicable to both the editors themselves as well as for journal staffs, authors, reviewers, and editorial team.

    15. Complaint Handling Process

The complaints of authors, readers, reviewers, editors, or journal publishers may be submitted to the Publication Ethics Committee for consideration. However, such complaints will only be considered if the editors/journals in question are a member of the Publication Ethics Committee.

Complaints against the journal editors must be submitted in writing directly to the editors as the initial step in the process. If the complaint remains unresolved or is not satisfactorily addressed, it can be escalated to the editorial supervisory committee or the supervisory board of the relevant organizations (if applicable).

Complaints that have undergone the journal's complaint procedure can only ones eligible to be forwarded to the Publication Ethics Committee. Additionally, all relevant documents must be attached for consideration.

The Publication Ethics Committee will accept complaints within 6 months after the journal has completed the review process of the complaint. However, the committee reserves the right to consider complaints outside this timeframe in exceptional cases.

The Publication Ethics Committee will not consider complaints regarding the content of an editor's decision to publish an article, but will assess the process. Criticisms about the content of the editorial will not be considered.

The Publication Ethics Committee will not consider events that preceded the publication of this ethical standards document.

   16. Handling Complaints Proceedings by the Publication Ethics Committee

The complainant submits the complaint to the Publication Ethics Committee staff in order to verify the complaint based on the following issues:

       a. A complaint submitted to a member of the Publication Ethics Committee.

       b. A complaint within the scope of the Publication Ethics Committee's responsibilities.

       c. A complaint that has not been resolved after submitted for journal consideration.

       d. An event that occurred after the effective date of this regulation (January 1, 2005).

The complainant is required to submit all pertinent documentary evidence, encompassing evidence related to the complaints against the journal, which acknowledged the complaint. This process is undertaken to instill confidence in the chairperson of the Publication Ethics Committee.

The Publication Ethics Committee chairperson informs the journal's editor about the forwarded complaint to the committee.

Various scenarios that may arise include:

Editors do not collaborate with complaint. In such instances, the chairperson of the Publication Ethics Committee will notify the complainant and the journal owner accordingly.

Editors respond to the complaint with the following issues:

       a. The chairperson of the Publication Ethics Committee and one representative, nominated by members of the Publication Ethics Committee Council, jointly assess whether the journal has satisfactorily addressed the complaint. They also communicate relevant information to the complainant and the editors.

      b. The chairperson of the Publication Ethics Committee and one appointed representative, selected by committee members, jointly assess the necessity for additional investigation. They convey pertinent information to the complainant and the journal editor, subsequently propose a report on such action and submit it to the relevant subcommittee of the House Publication Ethics Committee.

      c. The committee responsible for adjudicating complaints should comprise a chairperson and at least three members of the Publication Ethics Committee Board, with a requirement that two of the members must not be editors. Additionally, none of the committee members should be affiliated with the same publishing house (or original affiliation) as the accused editor.

      d. In the case of the chairperson holds a position in the same publishing house (or organization) as the accused editor, the chairperson will appoint a qualified vice chairperson to take responsibility for document processes on their behalf.

The complaints submitted to the Publication Ethics Committee will be processed by the committee as follows:  

      a. Retract the complaint and notify the reasons to the complainant and the editors.

      b. Submit a comment that there has been an infringement of the prescribed regulations.

      c. If the committee concludes that a violation of the prescribed regulations has occurred, a report is prepared for the Publication Ethics Committee Board, detailing the aspects of the violation and providing recommendations for the next steps.

            Upon reviewing the aforementioned report, the Publication Ethics Committee Board may consider potential adjustments to the recommendations. Subsequently, the complainant, editor, and publisher (journal) will be notified of the final recommendations, which may include the following:

       a. The editor is required to issue an apology to the complainant based on the received complaint.

       b. The editor should publish the statements received from the Publication Ethics Committee in their journal.

        c. The journal is obliged to revise its journal operational procedures.

        d. The editor is mandated to resign from the Publication Ethics Committee membership for a specified period.

        e. Alternatively, the editor is directed to take appropriate actions as deemed suitable by the Publication Ethics Committee for the specific case.

     17. Appeals Process

Complainants have the right to appeal against the recommendations made by the Publication Ethics Committee and may seek information about the appropriate contact person within the committee.

 

 

The original document and wrote on 1 January 2025.