Reviewer Guidelines

 

1. We would be most grateful if you would consider reviewing our submitted articles. The peer review evaluations are anonymous (Anonymous Reviewer / Anonymous Author).

2. Because we wish to ensure a reasonable turnaround rate for the sake of authors, could we please ask you to complete this assessment within the defined deadline. 

3. You can submit your comments (Word or PDF) in the ThaiJO system 

4. For external reviewers, an official invitation letter will be sent to you by email once you complete an evaluation. 

5. Should you require any assistance, information, or clarify, please do not hesitate to contact us at issj.mahidol@gmail.com  or Tel. 02 800 2841 Ext. 1219 (Miss Sasitorn)

 

Ethical Responsibilities and Roles of Reviewers

All articles published in Mahidol University's Integrated Social Science Journal are peer-reviewed by at least three independent, expert peer reviewers. The editor will first review submitted articles for completeness and significance and then decide whether they are suitable for peer review. The editor will make a decision based upon the peer-reviewed reports, but are not obliged by the opinions or recommendations therein. Authors then receive reviewers' reports with the editorial decision on their manuscript. The following are ethical responsibilities for reviewers: 

1) Conflicts of Interest Declaration: Assigned reviewers will be asked to consider the following potential conflicts of interest (e.g., family member, close personal friend, affiliation, financial interests or business relations) before accepting any review assignment. If the reviewers has any conflicts of interest, they should declare and decline the request to review. 

2) Timely Peer Review: The reviewers should commit to providing actionable and timely feedback geared toward improving the quality of publications. The reviewers should finish the review within the predefined deadline. 

3) Confidentiality: The review process is completely confidential, and all reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript and its contents they are reviewing. All reviewers must not reveal their identities to the authors or to other colleagues.

4) Objective and Unbiased Assessment: The reviewer’s comments and recommendations should be objective and unbiased. The contents should be considered based on the facts that are being presented, and comments should be based solely on the paper’s originality, quality, and merits. The reviewer should provide a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative evaluation of the manuscript, and avoid personal comments or criticism.

5) Plagiarism and Duplicate Publications: The reviewers must notify the editor when they detect plagiarism or duplication in a submitted manuscript contains.