Publication ethics

  To ensure high ethical and professional standards, AHSTR adheres to the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We expect all authors, reviewers, and editors to strictly adhere to these ethical principles to maintain the integrity and validity of scientific research. AHSTR explicitly prohibits research misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication, and falsification. The AHSTR strictly prohibits multiple submissions and citation manipulation, including excessive self-citation or 'citation rings' designed to artificially inflate metrics. All listed authors must meet the criteria for authorship by making substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. Gift, ghost, or guest authorship constitutes ethical misconduct.

Originality and Accuracy: Manuscripts must be original and not published elsewhere. AHSTR uses Turnitin to detect plagiarism (Threshold: <25% overlap).

Copyright & Permissions: Authors must obtain written permission from the copyright holder to reproduce any previously published figures or tables. The source must be explicitly cited in the corresponding figure caption or table footnote.

Disclosure and Transparency: All submitted manuscripts must include formal statements regarding human or animal subject compliance, authorship credit, and potential competing interests within the text.

• Human and Animal Subjects: Any research involving human or animal subjects requires prior institutional review board or ethics committee approval, and authors must state the official approval code directly inside the manuscript. For human research, submissions must include the Certificate of Approval (COA) code, approval date, and an explicit statement of adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki. Clinical trial protocols must additionally provide a valid registration number from a recognized public registry, such as the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR). Animal research must strictly demonstrate compliance with national ethical standards and include the corresponding institutional COA code.
• Author Contributions: To ensure proper accountability and credit, manuscripts must detail individual contributions following the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for authorship and explicitly map roles using the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) framework.
• Conflicts of Interest: Authors must fully disclose all financial, professional, or personal relationships that could be perceived as biasing or influencing their research findings.
• Use of AI and AI-Assisted Tools: Authors may use generative AI strictly to enhance language, formatting, or technical workflows in alignment with their field's established norms, but they remain fully responsible for the integrity, accuracy, and confidentiality of the entire work. If AI tools are employed, authors must manually verify all content and transparently disclose their use in a dedicated section titled "Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies" located at the end of the manuscript, immediately preceding the References.

Complaints & Appeals: Authors who wish to contest an editorial decision or make a formal complaint are responsible for initiating the process by emailing the Editorial Office. The submission must include the specific Manuscript ID alongside a comprehensive, evidence-based rationale justifying the appeal. Authors are expected to maintain professional and transparent communication throughout this process and await the formal 45-day review period for a final resolution.

        To maintain the highest standards of transparency and academic integrity, AHSTR requires both editors and reviewers to strictly adhere to shared ethical duties regarding confidentiality, conflict of interest, and objectivity:

• Confidentiality, Social Media, and PR: Under our single-blind peer review process, all unpublished materials, data, arguments, and reviewer identities must be treated as privileged and strictly confidential. Editors and reviewers are explicitly prohibited from sharing, discussing, or disclosing any details of the manuscript, the review process, or the final peer-review outcomes on social media, public relations (PR) channels, blogs, or personal networks. Using any unpublished content for personal gain, or citing it without the written author's consent, is strictly forbidden. Reviewers must not input submitted manuscripts or their contents into AI platforms. This restriction prevents potential violations of the author’s proprietary rights, confidentiality breaches, and data privacy infractions.
• Conflicts of Interest: Both parties are obligated to immediately recuse themselves from the evaluation process if any personal, professional, financial, or competitive conflicts of interest arise that could compromise their impartiality.
• Objectivity and Scholarly Rigor: Publication decisions and reviews must remain strictly objective, focusing on the manuscript’s original contribution to the field, clarity of argument, and the reliability of the evidence.
• Vigilance Against Fraud and Overlaps: Reviewers and editors serve as critical guardians of scholarly rigor. In addition to identifying missing citations or potential overlaps with previously published works, they must actively evaluate the validity of the bibliography. Reviewers are expected to be vigilant against citation manipulation, checking for "fake/hallucinative references," fabricated sources, or irrelevant self-citations designed to artificially inflate metrics. Any suspicions of academic misconduct must be reported immediately to the editorial board.
• Publication Decisions and Appeals: The Editor-in-Chief holds the final responsibility for determining which submitted articles should be approved for publication. Editorial board recommendations and rigorous peer reviews guide all final decisions.
              If a formal appeal is raised, the Editor-in-Chief or an independent review committee is responsible for executing an objective and strictly confidential investigation. It is the duty of the editorial team and involved reviewers to re-evaluate the manuscript objectively, free from bias or conflict of interest. The editorial body must render a definitive, final decision and ensure that the official outcome is communicated to the author within 45 days of the appeal submission.

        The AHSTR enforces a strict policy regarding the responsible use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies.

• Permitted Use and Core Principles: The use of generative AI tools must align with the established norms of the author's specific study field. Generally, these tools should be utilized strictly to enhance the manuscript's linguistic quality, readability, and formatting, or to support discipline-specific technical workflows (such as clarifying or optimizing software code). AI and AI-assisted technologies cannot be listed or cited as an author or co-author. Authorship implies legal and ethical responsibilities that can only be fulfilled by humans. Authors remain entirely responsible and legally accountable for the accuracy, integrity, completeness, and originality of the entire work.
• Mandatory Author Requirements:
  • Data Confidentiality: Ensure the chosen AI tool maintains the strict privacy and confidentiality of the uploaded data. The service provider must claim no proprietary or intellectual property rights to the submitted manuscript text or datasets.
  • Intellectual Property Protection: Do not use AI tools to generate content that mimics real people, trademarks, brands, or protected intellectual property.
  • Prohibition on Images and Graphics: In accordance with Scopus/Elsevier policy, generative AI tools must not be used to create, alter, or enhance scientific figures, images, graphs, or graphical abstracts, unless the AI tool is explicitly a documented part of the primary research methodology itself.
• Disclosure Mandate: Authors must transparently declare the involvement of these technologies upon submission. The disclosure must be placed in a dedicated section titled "Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process" located at the end of the manuscript, immediately preceding the references list.

  Authors are encouraged to share raw data, code, and materials via public repositories (e.g., Zenodo, Dryad). AHSTR reserves the right to request raw data during peer review.

       Upon acceptance of the manuscript, authors agree to transfer the exclusive copyright of their work to AHSTR. This formal transfer ensures that the journal has the legal authority to manage, publish, and protect the article within the academic community while preserving the intellectual integrity of the research.
        Following publication, the work is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. This framework permits the public to freely share, adapt, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided that appropriate credit is given to the original authors and the journal is explicitly cited as the source of publication.

  Research Integrity and Misconduct: To uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, AHSTR employs a rigorous framework for detecting misconduct, utilizing Turnitin and expert peer review to prevent plagiarism and ethical breaches. The journal encourages authors, reviewers, and readers to report any suspicions of misconduct proactively. All allegations are managed in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, ensuring a confidential and comprehensive investigation by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board.

  Investigation Process and Disciplinary Action: During an ethical investigation, authors are provided a formal opportunity to respond to the presented evidence. If the inquiry confirms research misconduct, AHSTR will take appropriate and decisive action following COPE guidelines Depending on the severity of the infraction, this may include issuing a Correction, an Erratum, an Expression of Concern, or a formal Retraction Conversely, if allegations are found to be unsubstantiated, the case will be dismissed, and all involved parties will be notified immediately. This balanced process ensures strict transparency while firmly protecting researchers' rights.

  Post-Publication Discussion and Corrections: AHSTR fosters ongoing scholarly disccusion by welcoming "Letters to the Editor" and constructive critiques of published work. If errors are discovered post-publication, the journal will rectify the public record using specific amendments based on the nature and impact of the error:

• Correction Issued for minor, clerical, or technical errors that do not affect the overall interpretation, discussion, or conclusions of the original article. This includes fixing misspellings, typos, or minor mathematical/formatting errors (excluding any changes to the author list). Depending on the nature of the fix, a Correction may undergo a brief re-peer review strictly at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.
• Erratum Issued for significant, inadvertent errors that tend to affect the scientific interpretation, discussion, or core conclusions of the original article. The updated manuscript must undergo formal re-peer review, ideally by the same reviewers who evaluated the original submission, before the amendment is approved and published.
• Retraction In extreme cases of serious ethical breaches, verified data manipulation, or fundamental errors that completely invalidate the research findings, a formal Retraction will be issued strictly in accordance with COPE guidelines to maintain the integrity of the scientific