The Asian Society of Human Services (ASHS) is committed to publishing and widely disseminating high quality content. It is critical that the editorial operations of all ASHS journals be governed by rigorous ethical standards that are both transparent and fair. Our expectation is that all involved have a shared understanding and acceptance of ASHS policies on publication ethics and malpractice. Our policies are closely aligned with COPE’s (Committee on Publication Ethics) Core Practices document, which can be accessed at: COPE Core Practices
Editors should act in a fair and balanced way when carrying out their duties, without discrimination on grounds of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religious or political beliefs.
The Editor-in-chief and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and other editorial advisers. This shall not apply when the duplicate submission of the same manuscript is suspected.
Reviewers will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Editors will recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Editors should have systems for managing their own conflicts of interest as well as those of their staff, authors, reviewers and editorial board members.
The editorial board of ASHS should investigate cases when a report on any research ethics violation is received, and the editor-in-chief should ask the Research Ethics Committee of ASHS to investigate the violation and soliciting the opinions of the editorial board.
The peer-reviewing process assists the editor and the editorial board in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the authors, may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editorial board of ASHS so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Any manuscripts received for review must be considered confidential documents. Information concerning the manuscripts should not be discussed with others without the approval of the editor.
Reviewers should strive to be objective in their assessments. Reviewers’ comments should be clearly expressed and supported by data or arguments. Personal criticism of the author(s) is not appropriate.
Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Reviewers will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Authors of original research reports should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements recognized as unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Authors will submit only entirely original works and will appropriately cite or quote the work and/or words of others. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work should also be cited.
In general, papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal including other ASHS’s journals. Submitting the same paper to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Manuscripts which have been published as copyrighted material elsewhere cannot be submitted. In addition, manuscripts under review by one journal should not be submitted to other publications while the manuscript is under review.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed to the editor at the earliest stage possible. Readers should be informed about who has funded research and on the role of the funders in the research.
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the editorial board of ASHS and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
If the accusation is confirmed to be false after the investigation, the Research Ethics Committee shall do its best to restore the honor of the accused, and shall take the proper follow-up measures.
The records related to the investigation of a research ethics violation case must be stored for five (5) years from the day of the completion of the investigation. The results of the judgment on a research ethics violation case must be reported to the executive members and the board of directors without delay.