Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
All papers included in The Journal of Renewable Energy and Smart Grid Technology (RAST) are double-blind peer-reviewed for scientific quality by at least three reviewers from various outside institutions. Only papers that have not been published previously or are not under consideration for publication elsewhere can be submitted for publication in RAST. Authors of papers accepted for publication should agree not to publish any version of their work, in English or any language, without written consent from RAST. The production process will be undertaken after the manuscript is accepted for publication in RAST.
The peer review process involves the following steps:
1. Submission
The corresponding or submitting authors submit the manuscript file, along with figures and tables, and complete the necessary information through RAST via the ThaiJO system.
2. Initial editorial review
Upon receiving a manuscript, RAST uses an internal system to check for plagiarism. Submissions with over 25% plagiarism (excluding the reference list) or more than 10% similarity to a single source will be rejected immediately. The Editor-in-Chief then conducts a preliminary screening to ensure alignment with the journal's aims and guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria will be declined without further review. An evaluation of originality, structure, quality of figures, and references is performed. If the quality is satisfactory, the Editor-in-Chief may assign an editor to the submitted manuscript.
3. Under review and revision
RAST implements a double-blinded review system with at least 2 expert reviewers. The editor will anonymize the submission by removing authors' names and affiliations, e-mail addresses, and acknowledgments. Then, the editor will start inviting reviewers. The invited reviewers are expected to be affiliated with differing institutions from those of the corresponding author. In cases where responses are not received, additional invitations may be sent, if necessary, to ensure the requisite number of reviewers, usually three.
4. Final decision
The Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision on whether to accept, reject, or request revisions for the manuscript based on feedback from the reviewers. If there is significant variance in the comments and responses of the reviewers, an additional reviewer may be invited before the decision is made. The author will be notified of the outcome (acceptance, rejection, or a request for major or minor revisions) and provided with relevant comments from the reviewers through the online system.
If the manuscript is requested for revision, the authors will need to incorporate the feedback provided by the reviewers into their manuscript and then resubmit it for a second and third round of review. The resubmitted material should include the revised manuscript with the changes highlighted, along with a rebuttal letter. Typically, authors are given a two-week timeframe for minor revisions and four weeks for major revisions. In the case of major revisions, the revised manuscript will undergo a second round of review by the same reviewers to assess whether the revisions adequately address their feedback. For minor revisions, an additional review process may not be required.
5. Copy editing and artwork
At this stage, the accepted manuscript undergoes a copyediting and formatting process to prepare for publication.
6. Proofreading and final correction
After the article is formatted, it will be sent back to the authors for review to ensure accuracy. Once any necessary corrections are made, the formatted article will undergo a final verification by the authors. Their confirmation will then be communicated back to the Editor-in-Chief.
7. Publication
The article will be published online once all processes are completed. It will be assigned a volume, issue, and article ID, and a DOI will always be provided. The entire process, from initial submission to final publication, generally takes around 4-5 months.
