Thai Legal Studies (TLS) publishes in accordance with the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which apply to authors, peer reviewers, the editorial staff, and the journal as a whole. In brief:

 

Responsibility of all named Authors:

• The submission to Thai Legal Studies (1) must not have been previously published elsewhere in any language, (2) may not overlap substantially with a work already published unless clear, visible reference to the previous publication is provided, (3) is not simultaneously under consideration for publication in another journal, and (4) will not be submitted for consideration to another journal unless rejected by TLS.
• Must declare any conflict of interest or competing interest that could interfere with the objectivity or integrity of the submitted manuscript. These interests can be financial, non-financial, professional, contractual, or personal in nature.
• Significantly contribute to the research involved.
• Correctly cite all work and have permission to use any reproduced figures or tables.
• While using artificial intelligence (AI) tools—such as ChatGPT or Large Language Models—in research development and writing is acceptable, the tools cannot be listed as an author of a paper. However, in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), authors using AI tools, whether in the writing of a manuscript, production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in the collection and analysis of data, must disclose how the AI tool was used and which tool it was. Authors remain fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, even those parts produced by an AI tool, and thus are liable for any breach of publication ethics. Authors are thus accountable for ensuring the accuracy of all AI outputs and that AI-assisted content is not plagiarized.
• Correctly list institutional affiliation (or independent status) during the time(s) when the work was conducted.
• At the revision stage, format the revised manuscript in substantial conformity with TLS Formatting Guidelines.
• Provide TLS with retractions or corrections of mistakes.
• Maintain accurate records of supporting evidence necessary to allow others to understand, verify, and, if applicable, replicate new findings, and to supply or provide access to this supporting evidence upon reasonable request.
  
  

Responsibility of Reviewers:

• Only agree to review a manuscript for which they have the subject expertise necessary to perform a proper evaluation and which they can do in a timely manner.
• Declare any conflict of interest or competing interest that could interfere with the objectivity or integrity of the submitted manuscript. These interests can be financial, non-financial, professional, contractual, or personal in nature.
• Remain blinded to the authors’ names and remain concealed from the authors.
• As manuscripts are deemed confidential documents, not share, discuss, or distribute their contents with anyone or anything (such as AI tools like ChatGPT) at any time other than those involved in the peer-review process.
• Not use any information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
• Be objective and constructive in making comments, and not make hostile or inflammatory remarks of any sort.
• Not allow a review to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the author(s), or by any commercial consideration.
• Report any suspicions of possible plagiarism to TLS. TLS adopts the definition of “plagiarism” used by Cambridge University: “Using someone else’s ideas, words, data, or other material produced by them without acknowledgement,” and notes that plagiarism can occur in respect to all types of sources and media, including text, illustrations, material downloaded from websites or drawn from manuscripts or other media, and published and unpublished material, including lectures, presentations and so-called “grey literature.” TLS considers “redundant/overlapping publication” to be “publication of a paper that overlaps substantially with one already published, without clear, visible reference to the previous publication.”

 

Responsibility of Editors:

• Follow the core practices and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
• Provide unbiased consideration to each manuscript and judge each on its merits without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).
• Have no conflict of interest with the author(s) of an assigned manuscript and/or the reviewers.
• As manuscripts are deemed confidential documents, not share, discuss, or distribute their contents with anyone or anything (such as AI tools like ChatGPT) at any time other than those involved in the peer-review process.
• Be alert for and report any evidence of possible plagiarism or unoriginality.
• Undertake efforts to process all submissions on time.

 

The TLS editors seek to identify and prevent the publication of any paper where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, duplicate publication, undisclosed conflict of interest, and data falsification or fabrication, among others. In the event that TLS is made aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to a submitted or published article, the editorial staff will follow COPE’s recommended process of investigation and resolution as set forth in the applicable flowchart, collected here. Complaints should be made to the Editor assigned to a particular manuscript or to the Managing Editor. If their resolution is deemed unsatisfactory, an appeal may be made to either of the Chief Editors, whose decision shall be final.

TLS welcomes academic Comments on material previously published in TLS and may publish such submissions with the consent of the contributor(s). TLS will also publish any verified corrections or necessary revisions or addenda to a published article, including, if appropriate, limited or complete retractions in conformity with the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

 

26 October 2023