1. Ethical Responsibilities of Editors, Authors, and Reviewers

1.1 Duties of Editors
      1.1.1 Editors must evaluate manuscripts fairly, based solely on academic merit, without regard to race, sex, religion, culture, political belief, affiliation, or personal relationship with the author.
      1.1.2 Editors must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts under review and must not disclose information about authors or reviewers to unrelated third parties.
      1.1.3 Editors must avoid any conflicts of interest with the authors, reviewers, or journal management team that may affect the fairness and impartiality of the editorial process.
     1.1.4 Editors must base acceptance or rejection decisions primarily on the evaluation results provided by qualified reviewers, and must not issue an Acceptance Letter before the review process has been completed.
      1.1.5 Editors must assign manuscripts to reviewers whose expertise matches the subject matter of the manuscript, must not publish articles outside the journal’s declared scope, and must ensure that the journal’s administrative processes comply with its published policies.
      1.1.6 Editors must act on any complaint or evidence of misconduct in accordance with the guidelines of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).
      1.1.7 Editors must screen manuscripts using a reliable detection program before they enter the review process. If clear evidence of plagiarism or substantial overlap with previously published work is found, the process must be suspended and the author notified for clarification before a decision is made to accept or reject the manuscript.
      1.1.8 Editors must not publish a disproportionately large number of their own articles in the journal, and must not use data, findings, or ideas from manuscripts under review for personal benefit before those manuscripts are published.

1.2 Duties of Authors
      1.2.1 Authors must confirm that the submitted manuscript is original, has not been previously published, and is not under simultaneous consideration by another journal (No Multiple Submissions / No Simultaneous Submission).
      1.2.2 Authors must not unnecessarily divide a single study that should be published as one article into multiple articles (Salami Publication).
      1.2.3 Authors must report research findings accurately and truthfully, with no fabrication or falsification of data.
      1.2.4 Authors must cite the source whenever the work of others is used, and must not engage in plagiarism. Authors must also verify that every cited reference genuinely exists and is retrievable, and must not use references generated by AI without verification (Hallucinative References).
     1.2.5 The list of authors must reflect their genuine contributions to the research process. Individuals who have not made a significant contribution should not be included as authors, and the specific role of each author should be clearly stated in the manuscript.
     1.2.6 Authors must disclose all funding sources and any potential conflicts of interest.
     1.2.7 Authors must format their manuscript according to the journal’s author guidelines.
     1.2.8 If a significant error is discovered in a manuscript after publication, the author must promptly notify the editor so that a Correction/Erratum or Retraction can be carried out as appropriate.

1.3 Duties of Reviewers
      1.3.1 Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts impartially and only within their area of expertise, providing constructive academic comments that are useful to the author, free from personal bias.
      1.3.2 Reviewers must strictly maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and must not disclose its content or discuss it with any unauthorized person without the editor’s permission.
      1.3.3 Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest and decline to review if they have a close professional or personal relationship with the author that could compromise impartiality.
      1.3.4 Reviewers must identify relevant published work that the authors have failed to cite, and must notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the submitted manuscript and other published works that has not been properly cited.
      1.3.5 Reviewers must submit their review within the specified timeframe; if unable to do so, they must promptly inform the editor.
      1.3.6 Reviewers must not use data, ideas, or research findings from a manuscript under review for personal benefit before that manuscript is published.
      1.3.7 Use of AI in the Review Process: Reviewers must not upload or submit the content of an assigned manuscript to any AI system, including but not limited to ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, or any other AI tool, as doing so constitutes a breach of the author’s confidentiality and may result in the unauthorized disclosure of unpublished research. Reviewers may use AI solely to assist with checking their own language or organizing their own comments, but must not input the author’s manuscript content into such systems.

This policy is based on the guidelines of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), the 2023 (B.E. 2566) ethics and integrity assessment criteria for Thai academic journals in the TCI database, and Scopus requirements.

 

2. Ethics in Human Subjects Research

      Manuscripts involving data collection from human participants must obtain approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or an equivalent ethics committee. Authors must clearly state the following information in the manuscript: (1) the full name of the ethics committee, (2) the approval number, and (3) the date of approval.

2.1 Cases Requiring Ethics Approval

      A manuscript must provide evidence of ethics approval if the research falls under any of the following categories:
       2.1.1 Research involving interviews, surveys, or observation of individuals in which identifiable data is collected.
      2.1.2 Research collecting data on behavior, income, health, or other sensitive information.
       2.1.3 Experimental research design involving interventions with participants, such as policy testing or the provision of financial incentives.
       2.1.4 Qualitative research, such as focus groups or in-depth interviews, conducted with vulnerable groups, including low-income individuals, informal workers, the elderly, or minors.

2.2 Cases That May Be Exempt

      If the research falls under the following categories, authors may state in the manuscript that it is exempt from ethics approval, provided that clear justification is given:
      2.2.1 Analysis of secondary data that are publicly available or have been anonymized by removing or masking information that can identify individuals, such as census data, data from the National Statistical Office (NSO), and Labor Force Survey (LFS) data.
      2.2.2 Documentary research, macroeconomic data analysis, or national-level statistical analysis that does not involve direct data collection from individuals.
      2.2.3 Surveys that do not identify individuals, are conducted on a voluntary basis, and whose results pose no risk of any kind to respondents.

Note: Even in exempt cases, authors are still required to state in the manuscript that the research does not require ethics approval, along with a clear explanation of the reason, in order to maintain transparency consistent with international standards.

This policy is based on the TCI 5th Round guidelines and Scopus requirements.

 

3. AI Policy and Similarity Screening

      JAEMS recognizes the role of AI in supporting the academic writing process, and requires that every submitted manuscript undergo screening for textual similarity and detection of AI-generated content before entering the peer review process. The journal therefore establishes the following guidelines.

3.1 Permitted Use of AI
       Authors may use AI tools to assist with improving grammatical accuracy, language clarity, or document formatting. However, authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy of all content and citations appearing in the manuscript.

3.2 AI Disclosure
      If AI has played a significant role in drafting or developing the content, authors must include a statement at the end of the manuscript, before the reference list, such as the following example:
“In preparing this manuscript, the author(s) used [name of tool] for [stated purpose, e.g., improving language clarity]. All content has been reviewed and is the responsibility of the author(s).”

3.3 Prohibitions
      3.3.1 AI tools cannot be credited as a co-author, as AI is unable to take responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the research.
     3.3.2 Authors must not use AI to generate or fabricate data, figures, or statistical analysis results.
     3.3.3 Authors must verify that every cited reference genuinely exists and is retrievable; references generated by AI without verification (Hallucinative References) must not be used.

3.4 Indicators of Undisclosed AI Use

      The editorial board may consider certain indicators that could suggest the use of artificial intelligence (AI) without appropriate disclosure, based on the following characteristics of the content and writing style:
      3.4.1 A writing style that is unusually flat and uniform, lacking academic coherence with the context of the research.
      3.4.2 References that cannot be retrieved or that do not genuinely exist (Hallucinative References).
      3.4.3 Content that is inconsistent with the raw data or analysis results submitted by the author.
     3.4.4 Findings reported by AI-detection functions

3.5 Procedure When Doubt Arises
      3.5.1 Notify the Author: The editorial team notifies the author to provide clarification along with supporting evidence, such as raw data, analysis records, or output files from the software used, within 15 days.
      3.5.2 Review the Clarification: If the clarification is satisfactory, the manuscript proceeds as normal.
     3.5.3 Reject or Retract: If the clarification is unsatisfactory, the editor has the right to reject the manuscript, or to proceed with Retraction if the article has already been published.

3.6 Author Responsibilities

      Authors are responsible for the accuracy of all content in the manuscript, including the following:
     3.6.1 Verifying that every cited reference genuinely exists and is retrievable before submission.
     3.6.2 Disclosing the use of AI in the writing process in accordance with the journal’s AI Disclosure policy (see Section 3.2).
      3.6.3 Retaining raw data and analysis records for at least 5 years to support verification if required.
This policy is based on the TCI 5th Round guidelines, COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), and Scopus requirements.

 

4. Misconduct Handling, Correction, and Retraction

      JAEMS upholds academic integrity as a core principle and establishes the following guidelines for addressing misconduct, errors in published articles, and circumstances requiring retraction.

4.1 Definitions and Distinctions Between Types of Action
      4.1.1 Correction: The correction of an error in the original article, encompassing both Erratum and Corrigendum.
      4.1.2 Erratum: A correction of an error arising from the journal’s editorial or production process.
      4.1.3 Corrigendum: A correction of an error originating from the author.
      4.1.4 Addendum: Supplementary content related to the original article, without modifying the       original content.
      4.1.5 Retraction: The withdrawal of an original article that has a problem rendering its findings unusable and that relates to ethics and integrity.

Note: An “Original Article” refers to an article that has already been published and made available on the journal’s website or in its print issue, bearing an assigned volume (Vol.), issue number (No.), and page numbers.

4.2 Key Principles for Published Articles

      For manuscripts that have received a formal acceptance decision or have already been published, authors and the editorial team must adhere to the following principles:
      4.2.1 A published article cannot be deleted or removed from the journal’s website (Removal), as doing so would affect the pagination and integrity of the issue and could be regarded as a lack of transparency.
      4.2.2 A published article cannot be replaced with new content (Replacement), as doing so would undermine the integrity of the citation system.
      4.2.3 Any correction must be carried out by submitting a new Correction or Erratum article, with a link established between the original article and the correction article in the metadata of the OJS system.
      4.2.4 Any retraction must be carried out through the Retraction process, by issuing a Retraction Notice that clearly states the reason and that is freely accessible to all readers.

4.3 Grounds for Retraction

      The journal should proceed with retraction of an article under any of the following circumstances:
      4.3.1 Duplicate publication or substantial overlap of research data (Duplication/Similarities) without permission.
      4.3.2 Plagiarism that violates the journal’s policy.
      4.3.3 Manipulation, alteration, or fabrication of data to achieve a desired outcome (Falsification/ Fabrication).
     4.3.4 Violation of agreements such as funding agreements or commercial contracts.
     4.3.5 Use of references that do not genuinely exist or cannot be verified for citation (Hallucinative References).
     4.3.6 Lack of transparency or manipulation of the peer review process, such as fraudulent peer review or undisclosed conflicts of interest.
     4.3.7 Other issues inconsistent with the journal’s ethics and integrity policy and/or not in compliance with TCI announcements.

This policy is based on the guidelines of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), the Retraction Watch Database, the 2023 (B.E. 2566) ethics and integrity assessment criteria for Thai academic journals in the TCI database, and Scopus requirements.

Updated: June 27, 2026