Peer Review Policy and Reviewer Guidelines

The Thai Man and Society Review (TMSR) is deeply committed to ensuring the highest level of academic integrity and scientific rigor. To achieve this, the journal enforces a strict peer review framework that combines our core operational policies with global best practices in structured manuscript evaluation.

1) Core Peer Review Policy
• Review Mechanism: TMSR operates under an Open Peer Review Every submitted manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening will be rigorously evaluated by at least two independent, qualified experts who are specialists in the respective field.
• Editorial Independence & Anonymity: While the review process is open to ensure transparency, accountability, and scholarly dialogue, all reviewers must conduct their evaluations free from any institutional or personal conflicts of interest. The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests entirely with the Editor-in-Chief based on the reviewers' recommendations.
• Confidentiality & Ethics: Reviewers must treat the submitted manuscript, including all associated data and materials, as strictly confidential. Manuscripts must not be shared, utilized, or distributed prior to formal publication. Reviewers are obligated to report any suspected plagiarism, duplicate submission, or data fabrication directly to the Editorial Office.
2) Structured Reviewer Guidelines
To assist reviewers in conducting a comprehensive assessment, TMSR incorporates the following structured evaluation prompts, aligned with our 5-section manuscript structure:
Category A: Evaluation for Original Research Articles
Reviewers should scrutinize Original Research articles across these essential dimensions:
• Title, Abstract, and Visuals: Evaluate whether the title accurately and sufficiently describes the content, factoring in discoverability and searchability.
- Assess whether the abstract accurately reflects all essential aspects of the study, including all major results and limitations.
- Verify whether the presentation of the results, including the number of tables and figures, is appropriate to best visualize the findings.
• Section 1: Introduction: Ensure the introduction clearly explains the scientific background and rationale of the study. Verify that the primary and secondary objectives are clearly and explicitly stated at the end of this section.
• Section 2: Literature Review: Assess whether the background and literature review section is comprehensive, up-to-date, and highly appropriate for the research topic.
• Section 3: Methodology: The study methods, including the theory, applicability, and modeling, must be described in sufficient detail to enable replication and reproducibility.
- If applicable, verify whether the specific experimental design is clearly identified. The sample size estimation and description of the study population must be thoroughly detailed.
- Statistical analyses, controls, sampling mechanisms, and statistical reporting (e.g., p-values, CIs, effect sizes) must be rigorously and appropriately described.
• Section 4: Results: Examine the data presentation. If the study contains statistical analyses, evaluate whether additional sub-analyses, reporting of confidence intervals (CIs), effect sizes, and/or sensitivity analyses are required to substantiate the findings.
• Section 5: Conclusion & Discussion: The interpretation of the results and study conclusions must be explicitly supported by the collected data and the study design.
- Reviewers must assess whether the authors have clearly and transparently emphasized the limitations of their study, including the underlying theory, methods, and core arguments.
• References & Citations: Scrutinize whether the references are up-to-date and relevant.
- Mandatory Rule: The manuscript must contain a minimum of 15 reference items, and at least two-thirds (2/3) of these references must be sourced from reputable international journals.
Category B: Evaluation for Review Articles
Review articles are evaluated on their capacity to synthesize knowledge and guide future research:
• Overall Relevance & Rationale: Evaluate whether the authors clearly explain the rationale for writing a review article in this field, and provide specific suggestions to better justify its need.
• Historical Development and Insights: Assess whether the review provides a comprehensive overview of the historical development of the field while also offering clear insights into its future directions. Identify important trends or foundational studies that should be added or emphasized.
• Methods and Reproducibility: Assess whether the review is reported with sufficient methodological detail to allow replicability or reproducibility (e.g., clear search strategies, inclusion/exclusion criteria, risk-of-bias assessments, and summary methods). Provide suggestions to improve the transparency of the review process.
• Statistical Analyses: Evaluate whether any quantitative statistical methods used (e.g., meta-analysis, meta-regression) are appropriate and clearly described, including metrics like p-values and 95% confidence intervals.
• Structure, Language, and References (Journal-Specific Requirement): Assess the overall structure, flow, clarity, and readability of the text, noting if it requires professional language editing.
- Mandatory Rule: The review must encompass a minimum of 15 reference items, with at least two-thirds (2/3) originating from reputable national (Thai) or international journals.