Publication Ethics

Research misconduct

Siriraj Medical Journal accepts the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles for medi­cal research involving human subjects. Thus, for any new research project involving human research subjects, starting from 1 March 2009, the authors need to submit a photocopy of a document of approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC). In addition, for any new clinical trial starting from 1 March 2009, the authors need to register at the public clinical trial registry prior to the research conduct. The registration number should be placed at the end of the abstract in parentheses. 

For any research project involving human research subjects starting before 1 March 2009 that does not have a docu­ment of approval from IRB or IEC, the authors need to convince the editorial board that the research does not violate any ethical concern on human research subjects. 

If there is suspicion that research has not taken place within an appropriate ethical framework, the editor may reject a manuscript and may inform third parties, for example, author(s)’ institution(s) and ethics committee(s).

In cases of proven research misconduct involving published articles, or where the scientific integrity of the article is undermined, articles may be retracted by the editor.


Data falsification and fabrication
Data falsification is manipulating research data with the intention of giving a false impression. Falsification includes manipulating images, removing outliers or “inconvenient” results, changing, adding or omitting data points, etc. Data fabrication means the making up of research findings.

Any questions regarding data integrity raised during or after the peer review process will be referred to the editor. The editor may request (anonymised) underlying study data from the author(s) for inspection or verification. If the original data cannot be produced, the manuscript may be rejected or, in case of a published article, retracted. Cases of suspected misconduct will be reported to the author(s)’ institution(s).


For all research involving human participants, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript.

Manuscripts reporting studies involving vulnerable groups (for example, unconscious patients) where there is the potential for coercion (for example prisoners) or where consent may have been given without being fully informed, will be considered at the editor’s discretion and may be referred to an internal editorial oversight group for further scrutiny.

Informed consent must be obtained for all forms of personally identifiable data including biomedical, clinical, and biometric data. In the case manuscripts describing human transplantation studies, authors must include a statement declaring that no organs/tissues were obtained from prisoners and must also name the institution(s)/clinic(s)/department(s) via which organs/tissues were obtained. Documentary evidence of consent must be supplied if requested.

For all manuscripts that include details, images, or videos relating to an individual person, written informed consent for the publication of those details must be obtained from that person (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 18). In cases where images are entirely unidentifiable and there are no details on individuals reported within the manuscript, consent for publication of images may not be required. The final decision on whether consent to publish is required lies with the editor.


Peer review
Independent researchers in the relevant research area assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity and relevance to help editors determine whether a manuscript should be published in their journal.

When a manuscript is submitted to a journal, it is assessed by the editor to see if it meets the criteria for submission. If it does, the editor will select external peer reviewers within the field of research to peer-review the manuscript and make recommendations.


Retractions and corrections

Authors, readers or organizations who become aware of errors or ethics issues in a published article are encouraged to contact the Siriraj Medical Journal in the first instance via the contact details available on the journal website. All reports will be considered by the editor; additional expert advice may be sought when deciding on the most appropriate course of action.

In the exceptional event that material is considered to infringe certain rights or is defamatory, the editor may have to remove that material from our site and archive sites.

Changes to published articles that affect the interpretation and conclusion of the article, but do not fully invalidate the article, will, at the Editor(s)’ discretion, be corrected via publication of an updated version that is indexed and bidirectionally linked to the original version.

For authors who’ve changed their name and wish to correct it on their published works, authors are encourage to contact the Editorial Office. 

When the interpretation or conclusion of an article is substantially undermined, it may be necessary for published articles to be retracted by the editor. The original article is watermarked as retracted and the title is amended with the prefix “Retracted”. 

Removal of published content
In exceptional circumstances, SMJ reserves the right to remove an article from SMJ’s online platforms. Such action may be taken when (i) the Editorial Board has been advised that content is defamatory, infringes a third party’s intellectual property right, right to privacy, or other legal right, or is otherwise unlawful; (ii) a court or government order has been issued, or is likely to be issued, requiring removal of such content; (iii) content, if acted upon, would pose an immediate and serious risk to health. Removal may be temporary or permanent. Bibliographic metadata (e.g. title and authors) will be retained, and will be accompanied by a statement explaining why the content has been removed.



Intellectual property is seriously concerned by the Journal. On submission, all articles are screened using the software ‘Turnitin’ which is supported by Mahidol University. Plagiarism is suspected when the percentage of similarity is higher than 20%, excluding the references. The editor will be informed.  Plagiarism (use of large portions of copied text and/or data) results in rejection while minor copying of short phrases leads to a polite notification to the authors for re-writing.

If plagiarism is detected during the reviewing process by any means, all the process will be immediately withheld. The editor will contact the corresponding author and/or all the authors for an explanation. Rejection of submission will occur once the explanation is unsatisfactory or the authors admit guilt.

After publication, the article will be retracted if plagiarism is proven. All the authors’ institutions will be contacted to explain the retraction and inform the expected future behaviors. The event of retraction will be officially announced as early as possible in the Journal.


Ethics of Authors

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Authors should acknowledge ideas and previously published results by citing these works in the paper and listing them in the references. The Journal reserves the right to use plagiarism detecting software to screen submitted papers at all times.

Accuracy: Authors of papers that report on original research should present an accurate account of the study performed as well as an objective discussion of its relevance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper which presented the results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. Conclusions should be based on the evidence presented in the paper and not on personal opinions.

Disclosure of financial support and conflicts of interest: All financial support for the research and the paper writing process should be disclosed in the acknowledgments and any conflicts of interest should be stated. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honorarium, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed when the manuscript is submitted.


Ethics of Reviewers

Confidentiality: Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the review process. They should not discuss aspects of the work under review with other researchers until such time as the article is published. Unpublished materials disclosed in a manuscript under review must not be quoted or referenced by a reviewer without the express written consent of the author, requested through the editor. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Conflicts of interest: If the reviewer realizes, after receiving a manuscript for review, that he or she has been involved in the research described, knows the researchers involved in the research, or for any reason cannot give an objective review of the manuscript, the reviewer should inform the editors and decline the review. Conflicts of interest can include competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper under review.

Objectivity: Manuscripts should be reviewed objectively in the context of the reviewer's expertise in the field. The importance of the article's contribution to the existing research in its field, the quality of articulation of the argument, and the strength of the evidence provided are critical factors in reviewing the quality of a manuscript. Personal opinions without backing evidence should not be used as criteria for review decisions.

Acknowledgment of sources: Reviewers should identify important relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published articles of which they have personal knowledge.


Ethics of Editors

Confidentiality: The editors make all best efforts to protect the identity of author(s) and reviewers throughout the review process. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be quoted or referenced by an editor without the express written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Conflicts of interest: Editors recuse themselves from the review process when they have a conflict of interest or personal stake in the publication of research work.

Objectivity: Decisions on publication or not are communicated after reviewing the submitted manuscript and peer reviews. 


Publication Decisions

The journal will not accept manuscripts which have been published (except in the form of an abstract) or are being considered for publication by another journal. Manuscripts under review at SMJ should not be submitted to other journals. 

The editor of SMJ is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.