Publication Ethics

The Journal of the Nephrology Society of Thailand (JNST) is a medium for promoting and publishing research and academic works in nephrology. Authors, editors, and reviewers shall comply with regulations on duties as detailed below.

Duties of Authors

Authors are required to obtain approval for manuscript submission from all co-authors. They are responsible for securing the necessary permissions for copyrighted content within the manuscript. All listed authors must have actively participated in the research submitted. Authors must confirm that the manuscript is their original work and has not been previously published. They must conduct their research with integrity, avoiding any fabrication, falsification, or manipulation of data. When citing the work of others, authors must ensure that they include appropriate citations. It is crucial for authors to rigorously review their work to ensure accuracy, adherence to ethical standards, and completeness before publication. Authors should be receptive to criticism and, when necessary, provide additional details in response.

Duties of Editors

Editors are responsible for assessing the quality of manuscripts submitted for publication in the journal. They must make decisions to accept or reject a manuscript based on its merits. Editors should allow authors to appeal a decision if there is a disagreement with the editorial stance. They must ensure confidentiality, not disclosing any information about authors and reviewers to parties not involved in the evaluation process.

Editors should not reject a manuscript based solely on suspicion or uncertainty; they must provide evidence to support any concerns. Additionally, once a paper is rejected, that decision should not be reversed unless new evidence warrants reconsideration.

Editors need to check manuscripts for plagiarism. If plagiarism is detected during the evaluation process, the evaluation should be paused, and the authors must be contacted immediately for clarification or justification. This is crucial for determining whether the paper should be accepted or rejected.

Editors must maintain a management system that avoids conflicts of interest with authors, reviewers, and the editorial board.

Furthermore, editors should support freedom of expression, ensure the accuracy of scholarly work, and uphold standards of intellectual property. When editors are replaced, newly appointed ones should not reverse a prior rejection unless substantial, clear proof is presented to justify such a decision.

Duties of Reviewers

Reviewers must be provided with a personal information protection system, except in cases of open evaluation where both authors and reviewers are informed in advance. Reviewers need to maintain confidentiality and avoid disclosing any information about the manuscript to parties not involved in the review process.

If reviewers identify a potential conflict of interest with the authors—such as previous collaboration, personal acquaintance, or any other situation that might affect their impartiality—they must inform the editors and recuse themselves from the evaluation process.

Reviews must be based on objective criteria and evidence; personal opinions should not influence the evaluation without substantiated reasons.

If reviewers recognize any part of the manuscript as being similar to or overlapping with previously published work, they are obligated to report this to the editors immediately.