Reviewer Guidelines

DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW

A fair, constructive and confidential review

Reviewers help JIL assess whether a manuscript is rigorous, original, transparent and valuable to its field. Reviews should support a well-reasoned editorial decision and help authors improve their work.

Independent ● Evidence-based ● Respectful ● On time
1 weekRespond to the invitation
3 weeksComplete and submit the review
3 days overdueAutomatic reminder email

Before accepting an invitation

  1. Check your expertiseAccept only if your knowledge is sufficient to assess the manuscript. Tell the editor about any aspect outside your expertise.
  2. Check competing interestsDisclose personal, professional, financial, intellectual or institutional relationships that could affect—or appear to affect—your judgment. Ask the editor when uncertain.
  3. Check your availabilityRespond to the invitation within 1 week. If you accept, complete and submit a careful review within the 3-week review period shown in the system. Decline promptly or request an extension early when needed.
  4. Protect double-blind reviewDo not attempt to identify or contact the authors. If you recognize them and this creates a potential conflict, stop and notify the editor.
Declining is appropriate

Decline when the manuscript is outside your expertise, a conflict may impair impartiality, or you cannot meet the deadline. A prompt decline helps prevent delays.

Confidentiality and research integrity

  • Treat the invitation, manuscript, supplementary files, review report and editorial correspondence as confidential.
  • Do not share the manuscript or involve another person—including a student or colleague—without prior permission from the editor. Any approved contributor must be identified to the journal.
  • Do not use unpublished information, data, methods or ideas for personal advantage or to disadvantage others.
  • Do not contact the authors directly. Communicate questions and requests through the editor and the ThaiJO system.
  • Do not investigate suspected misconduct independently. Report concerns confidentially to the editor with the relevant location and available evidence.
Do not upload a manuscript under review, or any part of it, to GenAI or AI-assisted tools.

This may breach confidentiality and copyright, and such tools may produce inaccurate, incomplete or biased output. The reviewer remains personally accountable for the review report.

Read JIL Publication Ethics →

Assessment criteria

Criteria for every manuscript

  • Scope and relevance: The topic fits JIL’s fields and is relevant to the journal’s readers.
  • Originality and contribution: The manuscript clearly identifies what it adds to knowledge, practice or further research.
  • Academic rigour: The argument, evidence and methods are appropriate, transparent and internally consistent.
  • Results and conclusions: Claims are supported by the evidence and limitations are acknowledged.
  • Organization and clarity: The manuscript is coherent and understandable. Reviewers should assess meaning and scholarly communication rather than act as copyeditors.
  • References: Sources are relevant, balanced and sufficiently current. Citation suggestions must have a valid scholarly purpose.
  • Ethics and transparency: Required ethics status, funding, conflicts of interest and other relevant declarations are reported consistently.

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Questions to consider

  • Are the research problem, objectives or questions clear and significant?
  • Is the research design appropriate and described well enough to understand or reproduce?
  • Are the population/sample, instruments, data collection and quality controls appropriate?
  • Are the analysis and interpretation technically sound?
  • Are results reported clearly without fabrication, falsification, selective reporting or unsupported claims?
  • Does the discussion relate the findings to prior work, limitations and implications?
  • When human participants or identifiable data are involved, is the ethics status adequately stated and supported?

REVIEW ARTICLE

Questions to consider

  • Is the review question, purpose and boundary clearly defined?
  • Is the approach to identifying and selecting literature appropriate and sufficiently transparent for the type of review?
  • Is the literature coverage relevant, balanced and reasonably current?
  • Does the manuscript synthesize and critically analyze evidence rather than merely list or summarize sources?
  • Are conflicting evidence, limitations and gaps in knowledge addressed?
  • Do the conclusions follow from the reviewed evidence and offer a meaningful scholarly contribution?

Writing a useful review report

1. Brief assessment

Summarize the manuscript’s purpose and contribution in your own words. State its principal strengths and the main issue affecting the decision.

2. Major comments

Identify issues that affect validity, interpretation or contribution. Explain why each issue matters and what revision or clarification is needed.

3. Minor comments

List localized issues such as unclear wording, missing definitions, table/figure problems or reference corrections. Use page, section, paragraph or line references when possible.

4. Recommendation

Select the recommendation available in the system that matches your report. Ensure the recommendation and written comments are consistent.

Make comments actionable and respectful

  • Be specific, objective and constructive; support important criticisms with reasoning or evidence.
  • Focus on the manuscript, not the presumed identity, characteristics or motives of the authors.
  • Do not rewrite the paper into your preferred style when it is already clear.
  • Distinguish revisions essential to support the claims from optional work that would only extend the study.
  • Do not request citation of your own or associates’ work merely to increase citations.
  • Avoid hostile, dismissive, defamatory or personally identifying comments.

Comments to Authors

Include the substantive feedback authors need to understand and respond to the review. Do not reveal your identity or the recommendation if the journal’s form separates it.

Confidential Comments to Editors

Use for conflicts, suspected misconduct, sensitive concerns or decision-relevant context that should not be sent to authors. Do not use this area for unsupported accusations or comments inconsistent with the author-facing report.

Choosing a recommendation

Use the exact recommendation options shown in the ThaiJO review form. The descriptions below explain the general level of revision; the editor makes the final decision.

AcceptThe manuscript is publishable in its current form, apart from possible production-level corrections.
Minor revisionFocused changes are needed, but they do not alter the central method, evidence or conclusions.
Major revisionSubstantial changes, additional analysis or major clarification are required before suitability can be determined.
DeclineFundamental problems in scope, originality, design, evidence, ethics or interpretation cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.
Your recommendation advises the editor; it is not the editorial decision.

Submitting the review and what follows

  1. Complete every required field in the review form and upload a file only when necessary. Remove your name and identifying metadata from any annotated file.
  2. Review your author-facing comments, confidential comments and recommendation for consistency before submitting through ThaiJO.
  3. Notify the editor promptly if you need an extension or discover relevant information after submission. If the review remains incomplete, the system sends an automatic reminder email 3 days after the review deadline; this reminder does not extend the deadline.
  4. When invited to assess a revision, focus on whether the authors have addressed the earlier concerns and whether the changes introduce new issues.
  5. Continue to protect confidentiality after the review is complete and securely delete local copies when they are no longer needed.