Peer Review Process

Reviewing Process

Suranaree Journal of Social Science (SJSS) publishes research articles, academic articles and book reviews.  All types of articles are required to go through the following rigorous peer review process.

1.  Screening

The editorial team considers the content of the submitted article to ensure that it is within the scope of SJSS.  The format, writing and language are also evaluated in the screening phase.  Last, but not least, plagiarism is checked by Turnitin.  This screening process takes about 1 – 2 weeks.

The submitted article can be rejected during the screening process due to one of the following reasons.

     1.1 The content of the article does not lie within the scope of SJSS, or

     1.2 There is over 30% of content similarity in the plagiarism checking process, or

     1.3 There is no significant academic contribution, or

     1.4 There is no real practical usage from the study or research, or

     1.5 The article is illegible due to poor format, presentation or the use of language.

2.  Peer reviewing

The editorial team selects 3 reviewers who are considered experts in the area of the submitted article.  The selected reviewers must also be from different institutions from the authors. The SJSS uses double-blind review, which means that the identities of both the reviewers and authors are hidden from one another.  The peer review process takes around 1-2 months.

3.  Notification of peer review results

The editorial team is responsible for the final evaluation decision. There are four potential outcomes as follows:

     3.1 Accepted without corrections: In this case, the paper is deemed ready for publication without any further revisions required. The authors will receive an acceptance letter shortly. Publication fee is applied. 

     3.2 Accepted with minor corrections: If the paper falls under this category, the authors will need to make some minor changes based on the reviewers' comments. Once the corrections are made, the revised paper will be reviewed by the editor to ensure that all the comments have been adequately addressed. The editor will then make a final decision, considering the quality of the corrections, to determine if the paper is ready for publication or if further adjustments are needed. For minor corrections, it is not necessary to send this paper back to the reviewers for reevaluation. 

     3.3 Accepted with major corrections: If the paper receives this answer, the decision for publication is put on hold due to identified technical problems. The authors are required to address major adjustments based on the reviewers' comments and submit correction forms that demonstrate how each comment has been resolved. Once the revisions are completed, the revised version will be reevaluated by the same reviewers, unless they indicate otherwise. In this case, the paper will be reviewed by experts within the editorial board who possess expertise in the same field. The final decision on whether the paper is deemed "ready to publish" or "not ready to publish" will be determined based on the quality of the corrections made.  Further corrections can still be suggested if necessary or even rejection is also possible if any comments cannot be responded. 

     3.4 Rejected: If the paper falls under this category, it means that the reviewers have identified considerable critical problems pertaining to the research methodology, argument strength, insufficient empirical data, serious technical issues, among others. The authors will be provided with detailed feedback from the reviewers to help them enhance the paper's quality for potential future submission.

4.  Revision

The authors must make changes and improvements in accordance with the reviewers’ comments.  The editorial team will then evaluate the revised version, unless the reviewers request to do so themselves.  For English article, a certificate of proofreading is required. The article process of revision until the final acceptance takes around 1-2 months.