Peer Review 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 online system only.

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 review if it is felt that it is not of high enough priority, not relevant to the journal’s aim and scope, does not meet 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.

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 subject matter expertise to do justice to the manuscript. 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 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 made by the reviewers.  If the reviews by the two reviewers are significantly different, the editor-in-chief will make a final decision or invite another reviewer to evaluate.

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 writing.  A revised version of the manuscript must be submitted to the editor within two weeks. 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 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.