Publication Ethics

The Thai Journal of Ophthalmology strives to conform the code of publication ethics, as shown in the following description.

Duties and Responsibilities of the Editors

  1. The editors shall be responsible for all processes related to publication to maintain the objectives, direction, and quality of the journal.
  2. The editors shall respond to the needs of readers and authors.
  3. The editors shall use a peer-review-process to ensure the utmost quality of all articles.
  4. The decision to accept or reject an article depends on the quality, importance, and alignment with the journal’s direction.
  5. The editors shall strive to maintain the integrity and transparency of the peer-review process.
  6. If there are any potential conflicts of interest with the editor in the topic, the process of seeking reviewers shall be transferred to another editor with no potential conflict of interest.
  7. The editors shall seek knowledgeable reviewers with no conflicts of interest, and have experience related to the article.
  8. The editors shall first contact the reviewers and give sufficient information (without revealing information that will uncover confidentiality) for them to decide to accept or reject the review e.g., title, abstract, research question, time frame for the review, etc. The editors shall not send the full article to the reviewers before their acceptance.
  9. The authors have the right to propose the appropriate reviewers to the editors. Nevertheless, the authors need to clarify their reasons and relationships with the proposed reviewers. The editors have the right to accept or reject the proposed reviewers with no bias.
  10. The editors shall disclose the process of the peer review whether it is a “close” (single-blind or double-blind) or “open” peer review model and to whom the comments will be distributed.
  11. The editors shall conform to the code of publication ethics, with the least biases and conflicts of interest.
  12. The editors have the duty to act in case of research misconduct. The duty covers both published and unpublished articles. In case of significant ethical issues, the editorial board will make the decision using consensus processes.
  13. For articles in which the editors are authors (apart from editorial articles), the editors need to assign an external person to be the temporary editor. This shall be noted in the article (if it is published) to inform readers that the article has been reviewed by an external editor.
  14. The editors shall keep improving the quality of the journal.
  15. The editors shall express appropriate gratitude to the reviewers.


Duties and Responsibilities of the Reviewers

  1. The reviewers shall be independent and voluntary.
  2. The reviewers shall give commitment and dedication to the review process.
  3. The reviewers shall be unbiased and review the article with a good attitude.
  4. The reviewers shall make constructive comments and suggestions with scientific principles.
  5. The reviewers shall point out both strengths and weaknesses of the articles, including their solutions.
  6. The reviewers shall not be informed about the identity of the authors during the review process. In case that the reviewers could guess who the author is during the review process and the reviewers may have potential conflicts of interest with that author, the reviewers shall inform the journal immediately about this fact.
  7. In case of the possibility that the reviewers have potential conflicts of interest related to the article, the reviewers shall not accept to review the article.
  8. During the process of reviewing, if the reviewers should find out that they may have any potential conflicts of interest, the reviewers shall inform the editor about this fact so that the editor could make an appropriate decision whether to continue the reviewing.
  9. The reviewers shall review the article within the appropriate amount of time and within the time frame scheduled by the journal.
  10. In case the article has been reviewed by the reviewer before (from another journal or other occasion), the reviewer shall inform the journal of this fact so that the journal could consider the appropriateness of the reviewer.
  11. In case the reviewers need additional information from the authors, the reviewers shall request it through the journal. The reviewers shall not contact directly with the authors.
  12. During the review process, the reviewers shall keep all documents and information confidential.
  13. The reviewers shall not use or take advantage of the data or knowledge gained from the review process until they are published or disseminated to the public.
  14. The reviewers shall not advise or ask the authors to include references that the reviewer is an author unless not citing those references will greatly reduce the quality or validity of the article being reviewed. In such cases, the reviewers shall make recommendations (and provide reasons) through the journal.
  15. After finishing the review process, the reviewers shall destroy or return all documents to the journal. The reviewers shall consult with the journal if they are uncertain about this issue.
  16. If the reviewers should find the possibility of ethical misconduct in the article, the reviewers shall confidentially notify the editors for further investigation and management.


Duties of the Authors

  1. The authors must be qualified, credible and have competencies related to the article. The authors must have the competencies to accurately collect, analyze, and interpret the data, and make the discussion with proper scientific rationale.
  2. The authors shall confirm that the submitted articles are original and have not been published elsewhere before. In case the article or part of it has been published before, the authors have the responsibility to inform the editors of this fact.
  3. For the articles related to research performed in humans or animals, the authors must send the documents to ensure that the research has been approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee (EC).
  4. The authors shall revise the article with informative and intellectual contents within the time scheduled by the journal.
  5. The authors have the right to disagree and refuse to comply with the reviewer's comments or recommendations. In such cases, the authors need to inform the journal along with reasons for the disagreement.
  6. The authors shall cooperate in providing data, additional information, answering questions, etc. when requested by the journal.
  7. The authors must comply with the research code of ethics.
  8. The authors must provide information such as source of research funding, or other issues that may be related to any conflicts of interest for the transparency of the process.
  9. In case the authors should find any mistakes prior, during submission, or even after the article has been published, the authors have the responsibility to promptly report to the editors.


Reporting or Appealing Process

  1. When detecting any misconducts, or opportunities for improvement; all stakeholders including editors, authors, reviewers, and readers can report to the editors.
  2. If the authors disagree with the journal’s peer-review process, the authors can inform or report to the editors.
  3. The journal shall inform all reviewers of the journal's final decision along with reasons for that decision.
  4. After finishing the review process, if the reviewers should find any new information that may affect the quality or validity of the reviewed article, the reviewers shall promptly notify the journal.