Publication Ethics

UPDATED 15 June 2026

To maintain the highest standards of scientific integrity and transparency in biomedical publishing, the Editorial Board of the Siriraj Medical Journal (SMJ) has updated its protocols regarding post-acceptance and post-publication changes. Authors, readers, or organizations who become aware of errors or ethical issues in a published article are encouraged to report them to the SMJ in the first instance via the contact details available on our Contact Us page. The Editor-in-Chief will consider all reports and may seek additional expert advice when deciding on the most appropriate course of action.

I. The Principle of Permanence of the Scholarly Record
Authors bear sole responsibility for the thorough proofreading and approval of their final manuscript. Once the galley proof and graphical abstract are approved, no further alterations will be made by the publisher upon publication.

Once a manuscript is formally accepted by SMJ, the original publication becomes a permanent, unalterable component of the scientific literature. It will not be altered, removed, or replaced. Any approved technical or editorial modifications will be issued exclusively via a distinct, permanently linked amendment notice.

In exceptional circumstances where content is deemed defamatory or infringes upon legal rights, the Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to temporarily or permanently remove that material from the official website and archive repositories.

II. Eligibility and Chronological Windows for Requests
Authors retain the absolute right to declare data discrepancies or voluntarily withdraw their submission at any point prior to the formal issuance of an acceptance decision.

Authors may formally request corrections only after a manuscript has been accepted. This protocol applies uniformly whether the manuscript is awaiting volume/issue assignment or has already been allocated to a specific issue. 

III. Categorization of Post-Acceptance Amendments
In alignment with international indexing standards, SMJ categorizes amendments into three distinct classes based on the origin and impact of the error:

❖ Corrigendum
A corrigendum is issued when authors discover an error or omission that must be corrected, but where the underlying results and conclusions of the article remain unaffected.

The corrigendum requires the explicit agreement of all co-authors and is subject to review and approval by the Editorial Team.

Standard corrigendum protocols do not permit changes to the author list, author order, or author affiliations post-acceptance.

If the correction involves institutional review board (IRB) approval dates or research protocol registration numbers, authors must submit the original, official certificate issued by the ethics committee. If the corrected timeline reveals that biological samples or human data were collected prior to obtaining official ethical approval, the amendment will be denied, and the article will proceed directly to a formal retraction.

❖ Erratum
This is reserved exclusively for occasions where SMJ introduces an error during the production or publication process. The journal will issue and link an Erratum to correct the production oversight.

IV. Ethical Breaches and Mandatory Retraction Protocols
SMJ will not issue a corrigendum or erratum if the underlying error stems from a violation of research or publication ethics. If an article is verified to have breached these boundaries, the journal will proceed immediately with a formal retraction.

A formal retraction protocol will be initiated for any article that demonstrates:
❖ Violations of human research ethics or publication ethics
❖ Plagiarism
❖ Falsification
❖ Fabrication
❖ Duplications or Salami Publications (redundant publications or the fractional slicing of a single dataset across multiple papers)
❖ Violations of grants or funding contracts
❖ Hallucinative references
❖ Any other serious misconduct or ethical breaches as defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

Upon retraction, the bibliographic metadata (title and authors) will be retained in the digital record. The original PDF will be watermarked as retracted, and the title will be prefixed with "[Retracted Article]". Proven cases of research misconduct will be reported to the authors' home institutions, and the retraction notice will be published as early as possible in SMJ.

V. Formal Submission Procedure
Authors seeking an amendment must submit a formal petition to the SMJ Editorial Office via email or postal mail. The submission must adhere to the following requirements:

1. A ​formal ​statement/petition. It must explicitly state a comprehensive and clear justification explaining the origin of the error and why the modification is necessary; identify its exact location within the text; and provide a clear statement confirming that the amendment does not affect the study data, results, or conclusions.

2. Mandatory co-author signatures. At the end of the petition statement, all co-authors listed on that specific article must provide their physical or digital signatures. This single file serves as the definitive proof of explicit agreement to the publication of the notice from the entire authorship team.

The editor-in-chief and the editorial board retain sole discretion to evaluate the submission and determine whether the requested amendment shall be categorized and processed as a corrigendum or an erratum. The editorial board and the editor-in-chief reserve exclusive, non-negotiable authority regarding the final approval of all amendments and the enforcement of retraction protocols.

 

Research Misconduct and Integrity
SMJ adheres to 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. If there is suspicion that research has not taken place within an appropriate ethical framework, the Editor-in-Chief may reject a manuscript and may inform third parties, for example, author(s)' institution(s) and ethics committee(s).

Data Falsification and Fabrication
Any questions regarding data integrity raised during or after the peer review process will be referred to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief may request the underlying study data (anonymized) from the author(s) for inspection or verification. If the original data cannot be produced, the manuscript may be rejected or, in the case of a published article, retracted. Cases of suspected misconduct will be reported to the author(s)' institution(s). In cases of proven research misconduct involving published articles, or where the scientific integrity of an article is undermined, the Editor-in-Chief may retract the article.

Plagiarism
Intellectual property is a serious concern of 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-in-Chief will be informed of this suspicion. Plagiarism (use of large portions of copied text and data) results in rejection, while minor copying of short phrases leads to a polite notification to the authors for rewriting. If plagiarism is detected during the reviewing process by any means, the process will be stopped immediately. The Editor-in-Chief 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, and all the authors' institutions will be contacted to explain the retraction.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology
At submission, authors are required to disclose whether they used artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies (such as Large Language Models [LLMs], chatbots, or image creators) in the production of submitted work. Authors who use such technology should describe, in the acknowledgement section of the submitted work, how they used it and which version of the technology was applied.

Human Rights & Protections
❖  Consent for Vulnerable Groups
Manuscripts reporting studies involving vulnerable groups will be considered with particular attention to ethical considerations. This includes research involving children (individuals under 18 years of age), unconscious patients, individuals with cognitive impairments, prisoners, or any group where there is the potential for coercion or where consent may have been given without being fully informed. Such manuscripts will be considered at the editor's discretion and may be referred to an internal editorial oversight group for further scrutiny.

❖ Informed Consent
Informed consent must be obtained from participants or their legal guardians (in the case of children and other individuals lacking the capacity to provide informed consent) for all forms of personally identifiable data, including biomedical, clinical, and biometric data. In the case of 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). If images are entirely unidentifiable and the manuscript reports no individual details, consent for publication of images may not be required.

Duties and Responsibilities
❖ Ethics of Authors
Originality and Acknowledgement: 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 SMJ 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 manuscript, which presents 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 and Conflicts of Interest: Authors must disclose all financial support for the research and writing process, as well as any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., employment, consultancies, stock ownership, grants). This information should be included in the Declaration section at the time of submission. A Conflict of Interest form can be found on the Documents and Templates page. Publication Decisions: The journal will not accept manuscripts that have been published (except as an abstract) or are under consideration by another journal. Manuscripts under review at SMJ should not be submitted to other journals.

❖ 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 other 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 every effort to protect the identity of authors 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: Decisions on publication or non-publication are communicated after reviewing the submitted manuscript and peer reviews. The Editor-in-Chief of SMJ decides which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. The Editor-in-Chief 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.