Journal of MCU Buddhist Review has revised additional issues from the Guidelines for Compliance and Implementation of Ethical Standards and Guidelines for Publishing Articles proposed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org)

 

1. Ethical standards of editors.

          1.1 No conflict of interest or there is absolutely no conflict of interest (conflict of interest) with the authors and evaluators in order to strictly maintain the principles of good governance in their operations, such as publishing a significant number of their own articles or there is no quality checking of articles before publication.

          1.2. Do not discriminate. Be transparent. Protect the rights of article owners and ready to provide information. Reveal. Remove articles that are erroneous according to the journal's standards.

          1.3 Protect intellectual property rights and personal confidential information that will cause the damage to the owner of the article which is in addition to the standard criteria and conditions of the journal. Personal information must be kept secret.

          1.4. Do not publish articles that have been published twice or infringe or copy the work of others in essential parts or duplicate content in the Thaijo website CopyCat system more than 25%. Editors must not publish articles that have previously been published in another journal. If found, evaluation must be stopped and contact the main article author immediately to request the clarification and make a decision to "accept" or "reject" the publication of that article.

          1.5. Supervise and monitor processes, methods, procedures or evaluate the quality of articles in the system. Supervise articles to comply with the standard criteria of the Thai Journal Citation Index Center (TCI).

          1.6. When a problem arises that affects the owner of the article, the editor is ready to provide relief or help or join in discussions to find a solution together with the owner of the article. Do not abandon or shirk from duties or shirking responsibilities. Should inform the article owner of the problem and find a solution together.

          1.7. Editors must build the trust or credibility regarding the quality of the published articles. There is training for the journal team to provide the expertise. Training to introduce academic writing services to Interested person.

 

2. Duties of the editor to the article owner.

          2.1 Supervise and consider the quality of articles, consistency of content with journal policies is important.

          2.2 Control the quality standards, accuracy of information, academic content or new knowledge. as well as the clear reference source of the article.

          2.3 Improve the journal to have systems, procedures, and regularly updated to facilitate information services. Creating a clear understanding of article format and references to complete and correct sources of information.

          2.4 Decide to accept or reject an article for publication. Give importance to academic content, new knowledge, and clarity and accuracy of the article format. throughout the scope of the journal.

          2.5 Provide consultation, advice, contact and coordination. There is clarification or information to be informed about the article review and evaluation process (Peer Review).

          2.6 The article must be evaluated by an article evaluator. The expert who evaluates the article has no conflict of interest with the article owner.

          2.7 Supervise and follow up with the article owner to correct the format of the article and check for complete corrections to content issues as recommended by the evaluators.

          2.8 Listen to the reasons, limitations, or problems of the article owner in editing the article according to the evaluators. In order to complete the issues as expected by all parties. And the author's instructions should always be updated to be easy to understand and clear.

          2.9 Editors should provide the channels for authors to appeal the editor's decisions. If the author has a different opinion from the editor's decision.

          2.10 Publish and distribute the articles to correspond with the month of the journal issue. It does not cause any damage to the owner of the article.

          2.11 Editors must not disclose the information about the author and of those evaluating articles to other persons that are not relevant at the time of article evaluation. The journal has determined to conceal the names (Double blind peer-reviewed).

          2.12 Enforce the follow-up of evaluators, do not publish, do not reveal the personal information about the article, and evaluators must conceal their names or the contents of the article. Evaluators will not publish or personally criticize information in public areas. Except that journals evaluate articles in an open public forum. Which has been informed to the author and evaluator in advance.

 

3. Ethical standards of article authors.

          3.1 Must be responsible and certify that articles submitted for publication in the journal must not have been previously published or are being considered by experts for publication in other journals.

          3.2 Authors must strictly follow the guidelines for citation format, academic or research article format according to the guidelines of the MCU Buddhist Review Journal.

          3.3 Authors must edit their articles correctly according to the format of the journal and the procedural conditions specified by the journal in the topic “Guidelines for Authors” in order to provide guidelines for writing articles that all meet the same standard format.

          3.4 Must consider research ethics that is must not infringe or copy the work of others as one's own. The journal has determined the duplication of work using the CopyCat program in the Thaijo system. The journal has set the value at a level not exceeding 25%.

          3.5 The author whose name appears in the article must specify his/her full name, surname, and affiliation. and must be a person involved in the preparation of the article or involved in conducting research in that article.

          3.6 Text, content, works, images, or tables that appear in the article must specify the “origin” to prevent copyright infringement and is considered the work or responsibility of all article owners. If it is found that there have been lawsuits, complaints or duplicate content published. It will be the sole responsibility of the article author. The journal will not be held responsible in any way.

          3.7 The article owner must edit the article format and issues according to recommendations from experts (Peer Review) or journal staff. If later it is found that you have not edited the article completely, the journal reserves the right to suspend or postpone the publication queue of the article in order to ask you to complete the article editing first. It is your duty to continually follow and inquire about the progress of your articles.

 

4. Ethical standards for article evaluators (Peer Review).

          4.1 article evaluators (Peer Review) do not have any conflict of interest with the owner of the article. If in doubt, there may be a conflict of interest with the article's author, which makes it impossible for them to express their opinions and suggestions freely. Article evaluators should notify the journal editor and decline evaluation of the article.

          4.2 The evaluator does not publish, does not reveal personal information about the article, and the evaluator must conceal the name or content of the article. Confidentiality must be maintained and article information must not be disclosed to unrelated persons during the period of article evaluation. After evaluating the article, it will not be published or personally criticized in public areas. Except that journals evaluate articles open to the public forum. which has been informed to the author and evaluator in advance.

          4.3 No academic bias, evaluate articles strictly according to academic principles, and have standard quality. Must introduce one's academic opinions with fairness, straightforwardness according to academic principles. Give importance to academic quality, accuracy, and modernity.

          4.4 Article evaluators should accept and evaluate articles in which they have aptitude or qualifications or expertise with the articles being evaluated by considering the importance of the content of the article, the quality of the analysis, and the intensity of the work. If the author of the article does not refer to the source of information in the article or has errors in writing language. Evaluators should not use emotions or personal opinions as criteria for judging articles.

          4.5 If the article evaluator finds that Is there any part of the content of the article that is the same or duplicates other articles. The article evaluator must notify the editor and provide evidentiary evidence.