Peer Review Process
Double-Blind Peer Review
AJSTR operates a strict double-blind peer review process: authors are anonymous to reviewers and reviewers are anonymous to authors throughout the entire review cycle. This model protects against bias and ensures manuscripts are evaluated solely on scientific merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope.
All submissions are first evaluated by the editorial office for scope fit, formatting compliance, and plagiarism (iThenticate, <30% similarity threshold). Manuscripts meeting these criteria are assigned to independent expert reviewers selected by the Editor-in-Chief or designated Associate Editor.
📋 COPE Compliance: AJSTR's peer review process adheres to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Editors, reviewers, and all involved parties are expected to follow COPE's Code of Conduct at all stages of the review process.
Review Timeline
The typical timeline from manuscript submission to first editorial decision is approximately 4 weeks. Once accepted, the average time from acceptance to online publication is 2–4 weeks.
The Review Process
Upon receipt, the editorial office conducts an initial screening to ensure the manuscript meets AJSTR's scope, formatting requirements, and ethical standards before it is sent for external review.
- Scope and focus check against AJSTR's aims and scope
- Plagiarism screening using iThenticate — manuscripts with >30% similarity are rejected at this stage
- Formatting and citation style verification against Author Guidelines
- Completeness check (title page, abstract, keywords, figures, references)
Manuscripts that pass initial evaluation are prepared for double-blind review. Author identities are removed and the manuscript is assigned to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers (up to five may be invited).
- Author names, acknowledgements, and author contribution statements must be in the separate Title Page file — not in the main manuscript
- Reviewers are selected based on expertise in the manuscript's subject area
- Reviewers must be affiliated with different institutions from the corresponding author
- Reviewers declare absence of conflicts of interest before accepting the invitation
- The editorial office commits to assigning reviewers within two weeks of passing initial evaluation
Each reviewer independently evaluates the manuscript and submits a structured report with an editorial recommendation. Reviewers are asked to complete their review within two weeks of accepting the invitation.
- Scientific quality, originality, and validity of the research
- Relevance to AJSTR's scope and focus areas
- Clarity of methodology and reproducibility of results
- Appropriate use of statistical methods and data interpretation
- Completeness and accuracy of references
- Constructive feedback to help improve the manuscript
Each reviewer recommends one of four outcomes: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
The Editor-in-Chief (or assigned Associate Editor) makes the final decision based on the reviewers' reports and the manuscript's adherence to AJSTR's standards. If reviewers' recommendations differ significantly, an additional reviewer may be invited.
The decision and all reviewer comments (anonymous) are communicated to the author via the OJS online submission system.
If the manuscript is accepted with revisions, authors must address all reviewer comments and resubmit within the specified deadline.
- Minor revision: 2 weeks to revise; may be reviewed by the editor only (no second external review required)
- Major revision: 4 weeks to revise; returns to the original reviewers for a second round of evaluation
- Resubmission must include: (1) revised manuscript with all changes highlighted, and (2) a rebuttal letter responding point-by-point to each reviewer comment
Once a manuscript is accepted for publication, authors are invited to submit the final, clean version of the manuscript. The editorial office then handles copyediting, typesetting, and DOI assignment.
- Authors submit the final accepted version — no tracked changes
- Final version undergoes copyediting and layout formatting
- A DOI is assigned via CrossRef
- The article is published online in the next available issue
- Publication fee (APC: ฿4,000 / $150 USD) is due upon acceptance notification
For Authors & Reviewers
The following checklist summarises what authors need to prepare and do at each stage of the review process.
Main manuscript (no author information) + Title Page file (with all author details, affiliations, funding, and acknowledgements)
Delete author names, affiliations, funding, acknowledgements, and self-citations that could reveal identity
Correct citation style, word count, figure/table formatting before submission to avoid desk rejection
Similarity should be below 30% on iThenticate. Manuscripts above this threshold are rejected at initial evaluation without external review
Minor revision: 2-week deadline | Major revision: 4-week deadline. Contact editorial office if additional time is needed
Address every reviewer comment point-by-point. For comments you disagree with, provide clear scientific reasoning rather than simply declining
APC: ฿4,000 THB or $150 USD. Payment details are provided in the acceptance notification email
📄 Full submission requirements are detailed in the Author Guidelines. Download the Author Manual for step-by-step instructions on preparing your manuscript files.
AJSTR deeply values the contribution of its peer reviewers. The following guidance outlines reviewer expectations and responsibilities.
Accept or decline within 3–5 days. If declining, please suggest alternative reviewers if possible
Decline the invitation if you have any personal, professional, or financial relationship with the authors or their institution
If you need additional time, contact the editorial office before the deadline — do not simply miss it
Do not share, discuss, or use the manuscript content outside of the review process. Do not contact the authors directly
Comments should be specific, actionable, and respectful. Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable
Base your recommendation on originality, methodology, validity of results, and relevance — not on language style or nationality of authors
AJSTR acknowledges reviewer contributions. Reviewers may request a certificate of peer review service for their records
👁 Download the Reviewer Manual for a complete guide to using the OJS review system and writing an effective review report.
Ethics & Integrity in Peer Review
AJSTR is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics in its peer review process. The following principles govern the conduct of all parties involved — editors, reviewers, and authors.
Confidentiality
All information related to submitted manuscripts is strictly confidential. Editors, reviewers, and any involved party must not disclose details about the manuscript or its review process to third parties.
Objectivity & Impartiality
Manuscripts are evaluated on scientific merit, relevance, and quality alone — without personal bias, nationality bias, or institutional bias. Constructive feedback is always expected.
Timeliness
AJSTR commits to timely review. Editors and reviewers complete their duties within agreed timeframes. Authors are promptly informed of the status of their manuscript at every stage.
Conflict of Interest
Editors and reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest before engaging in the review process. Appropriate measures are taken to ensure unbiased evaluation when any conflict is identified.
Plagiarism & Misconduct
Editors and reviewers are vigilant in identifying plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, and other forms of research misconduct. Suspected cases are reported promptly to the Editor-in-Chief.
Transparency & Accountability
Reviewers provide clear, well-reasoned, and constructive feedback. Editors make fair decisions based on reviewer comments and their own expertise. The process is documented throughout.
Peer Reviewer Recognition
AJSTR acknowledges the essential contribution of peer reviewers to the quality of published research. Reviewers may request a Certificate of Peer Review Service for their records and academic portfolios. The journal may publish an annual list of reviewers (with consent) to recognise their dedication. We are committed to ensuring the review process is a professionally rewarding experience.
🔗 For the complete AJSTR Publication Ethics policy — including authorship criteria, data sharing, corrections, and retractions — please visit the Ethics & Publication Malpractice Statement page.
