Publication Ethics

The Thai Journal of Public Health operates in accordance with COPE (Committee of Publication Ethics) Core Practices (, and is committed to adhering to ethical publication practices.



  1. Duties of Authors
  2. Duties of Reviewers
  3. Duties of Editors


  1. Duties of Authors

1.1 Follow our author guidelines and use the manuscript templates.

1.2 Submit original work
Plagiarism of other authors’ work and the authors’ own work is strictly unacceptable. When reporting the work of other authors, authors must use their own words and use appropriate citations. Authors are responsible for obtaining written permission to use any material (e.g., photograph, figure, etc.) that has been previously published in any medium (e.g., electronic, hard print, etc.). A Letter Template for Seeking Permission to Use Reproduced Material is available, which authors may use, if the information source does not provide their own. As part of the manuscript screening process, all submitted manuscripts will undergo a check for plagiarism. Any manuscript which does not pass this screening step will be returned to the author, along with the precise reasons for the return.

1.3 Demonstrate that relevant codes of practice were followed
The authors must state ethical approval/clinical trial registry/animal ethics approval details in the methods section of their manuscript. If applicable, trial registration numbers should be given, along with reference to laboratory standards or other codes of practice, where applicable.
        • Original research that involved human subjects must have received approval from a human ethics review board for the conduct of research involving humans. The authors must state the protocol number(s) assigned by the ethical review board(s) and the full name(s) and affiliation(s) of the ethical review board(s) that were responsible for approving the protocol(s) described in their manuscript. The authors must also describe the procedure for obtaining informed consent which was followed during the study. Researchers who conduct studies with human volunteers must comply with the principles set out in the Declaration of Helsinki.
        • Human research studies that test the effectiveness or safety of medical products, such as drugs or devices, or foods, food components or supplements, or medical procedures, are clinical trials and should be registered on a clinical trials registry such as
        • Research that involved animals should have received the necessary approval from an animal ethics review board, and details (name of committee, reference numbers etc.) must be provided.

1.4 Submit real and accurate research data, without fabrication or manipulation

1.5 Confirm that the work has not been published, and is not under review, elsewhere

1.6 Consent to THJPH publishing the work

1.7 Declare author contributions on the manuscript title page
Every author of the manuscript must have made an academic contribution to the work. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors provides guidance on meeting the requirements for authorship. They recommend that authors have played a role in conceiving or designing the work, or collecting, analyzing or interpreting data; and contributed to the drafting or critical revision of the work; and approved the final version for publication; and agreed to take responsibility for the work in relation to its precision and integrity.

1.8 Acknowledge contributors who do not qualify for authorship on the manuscript title page
Individuals who made any type of contribution to the work at any stage (i.e., from the time the idea was conceived up to and including manuscript preparation), but who do not meet the requirements for authorship, must be acknowledged. For example, they may be data collection assistants, laboratory assistants, individuals who facilitated access to the research setting, etc.

1.9 Disclose sources of funding on the manuscript title page
Disclose the source(s) of funding and declare whether or not the funder played a role in data analysis or interpretation. If there was no funding or no formally provided funding for the work, authors should state "The authors did not receive funding to carry out the work presented in this article." or "The work presented in this article was self-funded." If there was a source of funding the authors should write: "This research received funding support from [name of funding agency], [grant number]".

1.10 Declare conflicts of interest on the manuscript title page
These are usually relationships, connections or affiliations that could have influenced the results or the interpretation of the results. If there are none, please write: “The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare”. 


  1. Duties of Reviewers

2.1 Only agree to review a manuscript which falls within the remit of their expertise

2.2 Avoid breaching confidentiality

Reviewers must not: share a manuscript or any part of a manuscript with another person, assign another person to do the peer review, or breach confidentiality in any other way.

2.3 Only proceed with the review if they remain unaware of the identity of the author(s) and are not coauthors

2.4 Provide constructive and timely comments on the peer reviewer’s comment form, which objectively focus on intellectual content and not the reviewer’s personal or preferred style

2.5 Maintain confidentiality by avoiding wording that could reveal personal identity

2.6 If recommending the addition of references to support information, avoid manipulating authors’ citations

2.7 Notify the editorial office immediately if plagiarism or other ethical concerns are suspected

2.8 Declare any competing interests (personal, financial, intellectual or otherwise) to the editorial officce


  1. Duties of Editors
    • Evaluate manuscripts to determine if they meet the journal’s aim and scope, and facilitate the improvement of their intellectual content to maintain the quality of the journal’s publications
    • Protect the anonymity of authors and reviewers, as part of maintaining a double-blind review process, and not exploit submissions for personal gain
    • Reject any manuscripts which fail to remove plagiarism that is detected at any stage of the review process
    • Reject any manuscripts which are found to have been previously published or are under consideration for publication elsewhere
    • Retain the right to retract a published article, in the case that there is proven misconduct
    • Declare all conflicts of interest in relation to authors and reviewers, or any activities which may influence manuscript decisions
    • Contribute towards the goals and plans of the journal, and participate in public relations by positively informing their networks about the journal


  1. Process for Dealing with Allegations of Misconduct

Misconduct covers: a submitted or published manuscript that is suspected to be a duplication of previously published work, suspected plagiarism in a submitted or published manuscript, suspected fabricated data in a submitted or published manuscript, suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship, suspected undisclosed conflict of interest, a suspected ethical issue, and where a peer reviewer is suspected of taking an author’s idea or data. If any such allegations of misconduct were to arise, they would be dealt with as outlined in the COPE guidelines. The journal’s process of responding to whistleblowers would also follow the COPE guidelines. These guidelines can be viewed and downloaded: