Peer Review Process

RAST follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the scientific quality of all published work. Every manuscript is evaluated by at least three independent reviewers from external institutions. The full process, from initial submission to final publication, typically takes around 4 to 5 months.

Submission Requirements
Before submitting, authors should be aware of the following conditions:

  • The manuscript must not have been previously published or be under consideration elsewhere.
  • If accepted, authors must agree not to publish any version of their work, in English or any other language, without written consent from RAST.
  • Authors submit their manuscript file, including figures and tables, through the ThaiJO online system.

Step-by-Step Review Process

Step 1: Submission
The corresponding author submits the manuscript and all supporting materials (figures, tables) through the RAST portal on the ThaiJO system, along with the required submission details.

Step 2: Initial Editorial Review
The editorial team first runs a plagiarism check using an internal tool. Manuscripts will be rejected at this stage if they exceed 25% overall similarity (excluding references) or show more than 10% similarity to any single source. The Editor-in-Chief then screens the submission for alignment with the journal's scope, aims, and formatting guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are declined without further review. If the submission is satisfactory in terms of originality, structure, figure quality, and references, the Editor-in-Chief assigns a handling editor.

Step 3: Peer Review and Revision
RAST uses a double-blind review system, meaning neither authors nor reviewers know each other's identities. The handling editor removes all identifying information from the manuscript (names, affiliations, email addresses, and acknowledgments) before sending it to reviewers. At least two expert reviewers are invited, each from a different institution than the corresponding author. If responses are not received in time, additional reviewers are invited as needed, with the goal of securing at least three reviews.

Step 4: Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on reviewer feedback. Possible outcomes are: acceptance, rejection, or a request for major or minor revisions. If reviewer comments vary significantly, an additional reviewer may be consulted before a decision is reached. Authors are notified through the online system and receive the relevant reviewer comments.

If revisions are requested, authors must address all reviewer feedback and resubmit. The revised manuscript should include highlighted changes and a rebuttal letter explaining how each comment was addressed. Revision timeframes are as follows:

  • Minor revisions: 2 weeks
  • Major revisions: 4 weeks

Major revisions are sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of evaluation. Minor revisions may not require an additional review round.

Step 5: Copy Editing and Artwork
Once accepted, the manuscript goes through copyediting and formatting to prepare it for publication.

Step 6: Proofreading and Final Corrections
The formatted article is returned to the authors for a final accuracy check. After any needed corrections, the authors confirm the final version, and this confirmation is communicated to the Editor-in-Chief.

Step 7: Publication
The article is published online after all steps are complete. It receives a volume number, issue number, article ID, and a DOI.