Publication Ethics

Duties of Auttors

1. The author must submit an article that is without copying partially or totally from other writer’s article. The article must not have been published before or pending consideration for publishing in other journal. Copyright infringement is the author’s responsibility.         

2. The author must be contented to improve the form and the quality of the article according to the recommendation and suggestions from the editorial board prior to proceeding to at least two experts for reviewing.  

3. The author must always have references stating the sources of information at the end of the article strictly in the format specified by the editorial board.

4. The content and information of the article to be published in UBRU INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL are the author’s opinions and responsibility.  The editorial board and Ubon Ratchathani Rajabhat University do not have to agree with or share any responsibility.

5. In case the article has been accepted to be published, the author should be contented to examine the content and the form according to the suggestions made by the editorial board for the final copy before disseminating in the journal web-site and publishing in the journal.   

6. The author must well acknowledge and accept the requirements and policy pertaining to the publishing of UBRU INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL.

7. The author must acknowledge that the copyright of the article, information, contents, pictures and so on published in UBRU INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL exclusively belong to Ubon Ratchathani Rajabhat  University, not the author.

Duties of Editors

1. The editor judges whether or not the article received is appropriate and in line with the aim and scope of UBRU INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL.  If not, he has to urgently keep the author informed so that he may look for other related journal. 

2. The editor is responsible for sending the article to the editorial board to take into consideration the quality of the article if it should be forwarded to at least two experts for further consideration prior to the next reading step. 

3. If the editor is not certain about the content and quality of the article, he should not reject the article but request for opinions of a specialist on that particular content area from the editorial board.

4. The editor is responsible for selecting experts on various fields to review the article without revealing their names or the author’s name to either side, including other unrelated persons.

5. In case the two experts’ opinions and suggestions are contradict, the editor will decide what to do next such as following either expert or opt to choose the third expert to review the article.   

6. The editor is responsible for allocating the articles that have passed the review for publishing based on the order of submitting and also the content, whether or not it is interesting or diversifying, and other elements of suitability. 

7. In case there is an important reason not to publish any article in an issue of UBRU INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL as stated in the letter of acceptance, the editor reserves the right to publish the article in subsequent issue of the journal. In such doing, the editor has to always keep the writer informed in advance.     

8. The editor is the person who controls the publishing of the journal including disseminating the article on the journal website with emphasis on its correctness, completeness, and strictly issues the journal as scheduled.

Duties of Reviewers

1. The reviewer is responsible for reading and consider whether the content of the article is correct, interesting and beneficial for the reader with justice and without prejudice. He is also ready to make comments, suggestions and guidelines for improvement of the article in a clear, creative and empirical manner.  

2. When a reviewer has been requested by the editorial board to review an article, he should give a prompt acceptance (or denial).

3. As the article content nowadays is becoming deeper and more specific, the reviewer should accept only the article within his expertise so that he would be able to give intensive comments and suggestions as much as he could. If he thinks that he is not keen in the content area, he should deny and inform the editorial board.   

4. When the reviewer is aware that he cannot submit the suggestions to the article within the time specified by the editorial board, he should inform them and let them know when to submit.

5. The article reviewer should not inquire the editorial board or try to search for the information about the author of the article he reviews.

6. After having  reviewed and given suggestions for the first round, and the author has improved the article (with reasons and explanations) and sent it back, the editorial board will take into consideration of the improved content and request for the second review. The reviewer will review the improved article and report the result of the final review to the editorial board, such as acceptance or denial for publishing, or giving additional suggestions for the second round of improvement (or third or fourth round).