Review Process Policy

         This journal operates Double-Blind Peer Review. All contributions will be initially assessed by the editor for suitability for the journal. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of three independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper. The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final. Editors are not involved in decisions about papers which they have written themselves or have been written by family members or colleagues or which relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Any such submission is subject to all of the journal's usual procedures, with peer review handled independently of the relevant editor and their research groups.

Plagirism and AI index policy

Cases of suspected plagiarism will be checked by software which cooperated with all publishing houses. ThaiJo copycatch, and Turnitin will be used for thoses suspected cases. 

The similarity index and AI index must be not exceeded to 30%, manuscript with similarity index up to 30% will be rejected by editorial board.

Review Policy

The Managing Editor and Editors have the right to decline formal review of a manuscript when it is deemed that the manuscript

1. is on a topic outside the scope of the Journal;
2. makes no contribution to the advancement of the Food, Agricultural Science, and Technology
3. lacking technical or scientific merit                                                                                             
4. lacks of novelty                                                                                                                 
5. is poorly written

Reviewer

The journal will assign at least two reviewers (Double-Blinded) If the manuscript is within the scope of the journal, then it will be sent to reviewers who will determine if it is suitable for publication in the journal. Any manuscripts that are not appropriate will be returned to the authors. The manuscript’s quality will be considered by the reviewers, and those that are of a quality that is not suitable will be returned to the authors. Any editorial suggestions that the reviewers have will be added to the manuscript document electronically in such a way that they can be distinguished from the original. The reviewers will then return the manuscript with comments and an evaluation to the editor.

The editor will compile the comments and recommendations from the reviewers to form a decision on publication. The decision will be sent to the authors usually within 8 weeks of the manuscript being submitted.

When notifying the authors of the journal’s decision, the editor will classify the manuscript into one of the following areas:

- Manuscript is not suitable for the journal. An email is sent to the authors stating the decision and ending the review process.
- Manuscript’s quality is not suitable for the journal. An email is sent to the authors stating the decision and ending the review process.
- Manuscript is suitable but significant changes are required. An email is sent to the authors stating the decision and listing the changes needed to make the manuscript suitable for publication.
- Manuscript is suitable but minor changes are required. An email is sent to the authors stating the decision and listing the changes needed to make the manuscript suitable for publication.
- Manuscript is suitable for publication with no changes. An email is sent to the authors stating the decision.

It should be noted that otherwise suitable manuscripts can be rejected due to space limitations and publication deadlines. Authors should ensure that there is a suitable amount of time for the review process to be completed when submitting a manuscript. Authors should be aware that requests for revisions do not indicate acceptance, and that if revisions are not performed satisfactorily the manuscript can still be rejected.

The editor’s decision is final. However, if an Author can document good reasons why a decision was wrong there is a process to contest the decision. If this is the situation, the authors should contact the editor stating their case.