The Development of Quality Standards for the Evaluation of Academic Journal Articles
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Quality standards for the evaluation of academic journal articles, including research and scholarly articles as defined by the Office of the Higher Education Commission’s guidelines for academic work review, play a crucial role in enhancing the credibility of journals and the quality of published research. However, current standard-setting practices remain unclear and inconsistent, resulting in a lack of transparency in the review process, disparities in evaluation, and diminished trust among authors and readers, as well as damage to the reputation of journals. This article aimed to develop comprehensive quality standards for evaluating academic journal articles by analyzing existing issues and limitations. It proposed a systematic approach to improve key areas, including evaluation criteria, peer-review processes, the integration of supportive technologies, and outcome-based assessment for continuous monitoring and ongoing refinement. The goal is to establish a review process that is efficient and fair and that can sustainably contribute to the credibility and quality of academic journals in the long term. Therefore, the development of quality standards should be undertaken systematically with clarity, transparency, and practical criteria. The potentials of editors and reviewers, appropriate technologies, and continuous evaluation can also facilitate the enhancement of standards. These combined efforts will contribute to a high-quality, fair, transparent, and sustainable evaluation process.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
สำนักงานคณะกรรมการการศึกษาสูงสุด. (2563). คู่มือเกณฑ์การประเมินคุณภาพของบทความวารสารวิชาการ. สำนักงานคณะกรรมการการศึกษาสูงสุด
สำนักงานคณะกรรมการส่งเสริมวิทยาศาสตร์ วิจัยและนวัตกรรม (สกสว.). (2564). รายงานการวิเคราะห์ระบบวารสารวิชาการในประเทศไทย. สำนักงานคณะกรรมการส่งเสริมวิทยาศาสตร์ วิจัยและนวัตกรรม (สกสว.)
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150
Kelly, S., Sadeghieh, S., & Adeli, K. (2014). Peer review in scientific publications: Benefits, criticisms, and a discussion of the future. The American Journal of Public Health, 104(4), 552–556. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301959
Tullio, F. (2021). The influence of single-blind peer review on bias in publishing. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 52(1), 54–72. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.2021.01.03
Resnik, D. B., & Elmore, R. (2016). Double-blind versus single-blind peer review: A randomized experiment. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(6), 1517–1527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9739-2
Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6, 578. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who's afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60
Jones, S. J., & Smith, T. L. (2019). Validity in scientific publishing: Ensuring the accuracy of published research. Journal of Educational Research, 112(2), 212–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2019.1605499
Smith, J. (2018). Detecting plagiarism: Tools and techniques. Journal of Academic Integrity, 16(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.21913/JAI.V16I1.694
Brown, D., & Miller, S. (2021). Statistical methods in research: Evaluating data in academic studies. Educational Statistics Journal, 47(3), 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/00989389.2020.1850840
Lee, A. (2017). The significance of research outcomes in academic publishing. Educational Research Quarterly, 42(2), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000168
Jones, S. (2020). The role of clarity and structure in scientific writing. Academic Writing Review, 32(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.academicwriting.2019.10.004
Davis, H., & Johnson, M. (2019). Transparency in peer review processes: A review of recent advancements. Journal of Peer Review, 17(2), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peerreview.2019.02.007
Smith, C. (2020). The need for transparency in academic evaluations. Journal of Academic Publishing, 58(4), 505–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/10914447.2020.1773967
Brown, K. (2018). The value of reasoning in decision-making in scholarly peer reviews. Research Ethics Review, 14(2), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/2044200317737465
Lee, K. (2019). The feedback loop in peer review: Enhancing academic writing. Journal of Writing and Evaluation, 26(1), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/10520229.2019.1608930
Jones, T. M., & Davis, P. A. (2021). Transparent practices in scholarly review systems: Impacts and challenges. Journal of Transparency in Research, 33(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtr.2021.05.003
สมชาย วงศ์วิเศษ. (2559). การพัฒนากระบวนการ peer review สำหรับวารสารวิชาการไทย. วารสารการวิจัยทางวิทยาศาสตร์, 22(2), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60
Baiget, T. (2005). Quality criteria for scientific journals. E-LIS: Eprints in Library and Information Science.
Ziman, J. (1968). Public knowledge: An essay concerning the social dimension of science. Cambridge University Press.
Pöschl, U. (2012). Interactive open access publishing and public peer review: The effectiveness of transparency and self-regulation in scientific quality assurance. Information Services & Use, 32(3-4), 105–107. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2012-0666
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Al-Khatib, A. (2019). Open peer review and its benefits. Science Communication Review, 40(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467619832876
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). The evolving role of peer review in scholarly publishing. Information Processing & Management, 49(4), 899–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2012.12.004
Tennant, J. (2019). Technology and peer review: Tools for improving publishing practices. Science and Technology Review, 32(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2019.02.009
Harzing, A. W. (2010). Artificial intelligence in academic publishing: A critical review. Research Policy, 39(5), 487–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006
พิชญ์สินี ศรีวิชัย. (2562). ปัจจัยที่ส่งผลต่อความเชื่อมั่นในระบบการประเมินบทความของวารสารวิชาการในประเทศไทย. วารสารศึกษาศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม่, 16(3), 101–118.
