Peer Review Process

Submission Process

The following steps are used to process all manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Arts and Thai Studies (ARTS):

1. Manuscript submission

The author submits a manuscript to ARTS via its ThaiJO online system only. Using the designated online submission system ensures that the manuscript is properly received, processed, and reviewed by the journal's editorial team. It streamlines the submission process and helps maintain the consistency and organization of submissions for efficient review and publication.

2. Screening by the editor-in-chief

All submissions to the journal are initially reviewed by the editor and her associates. At this stage, a manuscript may be rejected without peer reviewing if it does not meet the journal’s standards in terms of quality or if it involves plagiarism. This fast rejection process means that authors are given a quick decision and do not need to wait for the review process. If the content of the article aligns with the aims and scope specified by the journal but the formatting does not meet the journal's requirements, the editor-in-chief will return the manuscript to the author. The editor-in-chief will then make the necessary adjustments to ensure the correct formatting and resubmit it into the system. This formatting review process typically takes around 1-4 days. Once the manuscript meets the journal's standards, it will be forwarded to the Journal Manager for further evaluation by the assigned reviewers.

3. Assignment of reviewers

Manuscripts that are not instantly rejected are sent out for peer review, usually to three independent reviewers. The journal uses a double-blind peer-review system, in which the author does not know the identities of the reviewers and the reviewers do not know the identities of the author. Invited reviewers are usually not affiliated with the same institution. They must also be affiliated with a different institution from the author. The editor carefully selects reviewers who have sufficient expertise on the subject matter. For some niche subject areas, the editor might ask the author to recommend a list of possible reviewers from which the editor-in-chief might consider choosing.

4. Review

ARTS provides a review form to all reviewers. Based on this form, reviewers evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and provide suggestions to improve it. Reviewers evaluate a manuscript based on the following criteria: a) contribution to existing knowledge, b) organization and readability, c) soundness of methodology, d) evidence to support the conclusion, and e) adequacy of the literature review. They then provide their recommendation to the editor-in-chief as to whether the manuscript should a) be accepted without any change, b) accepted after minor improvement, c) accepted after major revision, or d) not accepted for publication. Reviewers are given at least two weeks to do the review.

5. Review evaluation

The editor evaluates the reviews and recommendations provided by the three reviewers, summarizes the evaluation results, and informs those to the authors. There are two main groups of results: articles with minor revisions will be given a 15-day period for adjustments, while articles requiring major revisions will have 30 days to be corrected and resubmitted for further review by the reviewers. After the resubmission, another 15-day period is allocated to assess the revised manuscript. The final outcome of this second evaluation round will determine whether the article is accepted for publication or declined for publication.

6. Revision by author

After receiving the review results, the author is invited to revise the manuscript according to the suggestions. If there are any points that the author fails to address, he/she must inform the editor-in-chief in writing. A revised version of the manuscript must be submitted to the journal within 15 days. A longer period of time can be provided if the manuscript needs major revisions.

7. Final decision making

After receiving the revised manuscript, the editor-in-chief will review the revisions. The editor then makes a final decision on whether to accept the revised manuscript or not. Manuscripts that pass this final stage will proceed to reference editing and copy editing before being published. During the publication decision process, the editor-in-chief will take approximately a week to review the revised manuscript. Once the manuscript is accepted, it will be forwarded for artwork creation, which usually takes around a week. The formatted manuscript will then be sent back to the author for verification of accuracy, which will also take about a week. After any necessary corrections are made, the article will undergo a final check and be thoroughly reviewed before being published in the online journal system.

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement for Peer Review Process

ARTS is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and preventing any form of malpractice in its peer-review process. We adhere to the following guidelines:

1. Confidentiality: The peer-review process is strictly confidential, and all information related to submitted manuscripts is treated with utmost confidentiality. Editors, reviewers, and all involved parties are required to maintain strict confidentiality and refrain from disclosing any details about the manuscript or its review process.

2. Objectivity and Impartiality: Peer review is conducted in an objective and unbiased manner. Editors and reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on scientific merit, relevance, and quality, without any personal bias or conflict of interest. Constructive feedback is provided to authors to enhance the quality of their work.

3. Timeliness: ARTS is committed to ensuring timely peer review. Editors and reviewers are expected to complete the review process within a reasonable timeframe. Authors will receive prompt updates on the status and progress of their manuscripts during the review process.

4. Transparency and Accountability: The peer-review process follows principles of transparency and accountability. Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear, well-reasoned, and constructive feedback. Editors make fair and informed decisions based on the reviewers' comments and their own expertise.

5. Conflict of Interest: Editors and reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could compromise their objectivity and impartiality in the review process. When conflicts of interest arise, appropriate measures are taken to ensure unbiased evaluation.

6. Research Integrity: Editors and reviewers are vigilant in identifying any potential issues related to research integrity, such as data fabrication or other forms of misconduct. Suspected misconduct is promptly reported to the relevant authorities for investigation.

7. Peer Reviewer Recognition: ARTS acknowledges the invaluable contribution of peer reviewers and recognizes their expertise and dedication. The journal provides appropriate recognition and credit to reviewers for their valuable contributions to the publication process.

ARTS remains committed to maintaining the integrity, credibility, fairness, and ethical conduct of the peer-review process. These efforts ensure the high quality and trustworthiness of the research published in our journal.