Publication Ethics

1. Editor

1.1 The editor is responsible for evaluating the academic value of the article. Taking into account the objectives and scope of the journal without regard to race, religion, philosophy, politics, or institutions.

1.2 The editor must maintain the confidentiality of the article and various information until the article is published, except in the case of suspicion that the article will violate publishing ethics. When it is clear that there has been a breach of publishing ethics, editors can withdraw articles from processing without obtaining consent from the author.

1.3 Editors must keep the results of article reviews and reviewer comments confidential and do not allow them to be used for personal gain.

1.4 Editors must not have conflicts of interest with authors and reviewers, including not using various information in the article as your work or that of others.

2. Reviewer

2.1 The reviewer must first check whether there is a conflict of interest with the author. If it is found that the reviewer is unable to provide independent suggestions and opinions, the reviewer must notify the editor and refuse to review the article.

2.2 The reviewer helps editors make decisions about publishing articles and helps authors improve the quality of articles in their areas of expertise. Using academic principles and theories to support scientific or empirical arguments. Do not use personal opinions without supporting evidence or data as a criterion for judging articles.

2.3 The reviewer must keep the articles assigned to consider confidential.

2.4 The reviewer must not use information in the article as their or others' work. If the reviewer finds that the author has violated publication ethics, the reviewer must notify the editor immediately.

3. Author

3.1 The article is the work of the author (and colleagues) without using the work of others as their own and without plagiarizing the work of others.

3.2 The article has never been published before. Including not copying any text from one's previous work without referring to the original work according to academic principles in a manner that would cause misunderstanding that it is a new work.

3.3 The author (and colleagues) will not submit the article for consideration for publication or distribution elsewhere until the editor has withdrawn the article or the article has not been evaluated.

3.4 The author (and colleagues) have cited the person or source of information used in the article to provide evidence of their research.

3.5 The article is derived from a study using academic principles as a criterion, without bias, and presents the work truthfully. Do not intentionally deviate from research results for personal gain or to cause damage to others. Present the work truthfully and do not extend the findings without academic verification.

3.6 If the article uses data from human or animal research, the author (and colleagues) has provided permission from the research ethics committee of the institution where the work is performed in the article.

3.7 If the article uses information from research related to the Animal Diseases and Toxins Act and regulations. The authors (and colleagues) have expressed approval from the biosafety control committee of the institution where the work is performed in the article.

3.8 The information the author (and colleagues) used to write the article was obtained through legitimate methods.