JOSAH is firmly committed to promoting the highest ethical standards in publication and adheres to the publication ethics standards set out by the Commission on Publication Ethics (COPE) in its Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, on which the following guidelines are based.
Authorship should be determined based on significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. It is imperative that all individuals who have contributed substantially be listed as co-authors, and the order of authorship should be a collective decision of the authors. Individuals who have participated in important aspects of the research project but do not meet the full criteria for authorship should be acknowledged in the ‘Acknowledgments’ section with their name and affiliation. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors have seen, approved the final version of the paper, and agreed to its submission for publication.
You may refer to the criteria recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and to COPE’s extensive resources on authorship to help determine the status of a contributor.
When artificial intelligence tools are used for writing the manuscript or for data gathering and analysis, authors should clearly describe in the Materials and Methods section, or a similar section, how AI was used, and which tool was employed. Authors hold complete accountability for the entire content of their manuscript, including parts generated by AI.
Complaints and appeals
Editors and reviewers rigorously work to prevent publication of papers involved in research misconduct, such as plagiarism, citation manipulation, or data falsification prior to publication. In the event of complaints, appeals, or allegations concerning research misconduct, these should be directed to the journal’s editors via email, where they will be thoroughly reviewed in accordance with guidelines from COPE. If, upon investigation, research misconduct has been proven to have occurred, the editors will undertake necessary actions to ensure the prompt publication of a correction or a full retraction of the concerned paper.
If an author wishes to appeal an editorial decision based on a perceived material error, the appeal will initially be evaluated by the editor for validity. If the appeal is deemed valid, a comprehensive review will be conducted by the editorial board and/or external peer reviewers. A fresh editorial decision will be issued, based on the outcome of this review. Questions regarding the integrity of the editorial process may be directed to the Australian Society for Asian Humanities which oversees the journal and its editors.
Conflicts of interests
We maintain strict guidelines to address conflicts of interest during the review and publication process. Editors and editorial staff are prohibited from using unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research without the author’s explicit written consent. They are further expected to recuse themselves from reviewing submissions in which they might have conflicts of interest arising from their relationship with any of the authors or institutions connected to the manuscript. Instead, such submissions will be assigned to another member of the editorial team for a fair evaluation. Similarly, peer reviewers must decline to review a manuscript if they perceive a conflict of interest.
Editors evaluate manuscripts strictly based on their intellectual content, with no consideration given to the author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. Moreover, editorial decisions are independent of the author’s institutional affiliation, country of origin, or personal characteristics.
We maintain strict confidentiality regarding all submissions. Information pertaining to a submission is disclosed only to the corresponding author, editorial advisors, and the publisher, as necessary. Reviewers are also required to treat all manuscripts received for review as confidential, irrespective of whether they have agreed to review the manuscript or not.
Data sharing and reproducibility
Authors might be requested to provide raw data associated with their manuscript during the editorial review process. They should be prepared to maintain this data for a significant period post-publication. We strongly encourage (but do not require) authors to also make their data publicly accessible, when possible. Nonetheless, data sharing should respect participant confidentiality and legal rights concerning proprietary information.
In any research involving human subjects, animals and/or confidential data, authors must secure approval from a suitable ethics committee, which should be clearly stated in the article. In the case of human subjects, informed consent must be obtained from participants or their legal guardians in the case of minors. Independent scholars and scholars based at institutions lacking formal oversight for human subject research will be asked to provide documentation of their ethical research practices during the review process. Peer reviewers may be requested to comment on potential ethical issues within submissions.
[TO BE FILLED IN]
Post-publication discussions and corrections
When authors identify a substantive error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is their responsibility to promptly notify the journal’s editors. If the error is substantive the editors will issue a correction notice in a later issue of the journal. However, minor errors that do not hinder comprehension, such as typographical mistakes, will not be corrected. If the error or inaccuracy is disclosed by a third-party, the editors will contact the author to ask for a correction or provide evidence of the correctness of the paper’s claims. In case of a fundamental error or substantiated research misconduct the publishers will ensure the dissemination of a detailed retraction notice in a future issue of the journal and on the journal’s website.