Peer Review Policy
         JYRU employs a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review. Each manuscript that passes the initial evaluation is reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief based on their expertise and must not be affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors or have any other conflict of interest with the manuscript. All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents, and reviewers may not share, discuss, or use the content of a manuscript for any purpose other than the review. Editorial decisions are based solely on the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal's scope.

Step 1: Submission
              The author submits the manuscript through the ThaiJO system.

Step 2: Initial Screening
              The manuscript undergoes three stages of initial screening before peer review. The screening process includes a similarity check using CopyCatch, developed by NECTEC and provided through ThaiJO.
              2.1 Administrative Check (1 week): The Managing and Production Editor checks the manuscript for similarity, compliance with the journal's required format and sections, and completeness of the required submission documents. If the manuscript or required documents do not meet the journal's requirements, the manuscript may be rejected before proceeding to peer review.
              2.2 Editor-in-Chief Evaluation (1 week): The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript's overall quality, scientific merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope, as well as its suitability for peer review. If the manuscript meets the journal's requirements and is considered suitable for peer review, it proceeds to the technical check. Otherwise, the manuscript is rejected without peer review, and the author is informed.
              2.3 Technical Check: The Managing and Production Editor checks the manuscript for compliance with the journal template and Author Guidelines, including the accuracy and completeness of the submission metadata. If revisions are required, the manuscript is returned to the author for correction before it can proceed to peer review.
                     The author must complete the required corrections and resubmit the manuscript within 30 calendar days from the date on which the manuscript is first returned for correction. The revised manuscript is then re-checked for compliance with the journal's requirements and similarity before being sent for peer review. This process may be repeated as necessary until the manuscript meets all requirements and is ready to be sent to the reviewers.
                     If the manuscript is not resubmitted within the specified 30-day period, or if the resubmitted manuscript remains incomplete or does not meet the journal's requirements within the specified period, the manuscript will be rejected.

Step 3: Assignment of Reviewers
              The Editor-in-Chief assigns at least two qualified and independent reviewers to evaluate the manuscript based on their expertise and the subject of the manuscript. The Managing and Production Editor sends the review invitations and monitors the review timeline.

Step 4: Peer Review (3 weeks)
              The reviewers evaluate the manuscript and submit their reports and recommendations. The journal uses a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

Step 5: Author Revision (4 weeks)
             The reviewers' comments are sent to the author, who must revise the manuscript and submit a point-by-point response within 4 weeks.
             If a reviewer requests to review the revised manuscript, it is returned to that reviewer for re-evaluation. This process may be repeated as necessary until the reviewer is satisfied with the revisions, after which the manuscript proceeds to Step 6.
             If no reviewer requests to review the revised manuscript, the manuscript proceeds directly to Step 6. If a reviewer recommends rejection, the manuscript is forwarded directly to the Editor-in-Chief for an editorial decision without revision at this stage.

Step 6: Editorial Decision (1 week)
              The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the revised manuscript together with the authors' point-by-point responses and the reviewers' comments and recommendations. The Editor-in-Chief determines whether the manuscript has adequately addressed the reviewers' concerns and meets the journal's standards for scientific quality, originality, relevance, and overall suitability for publication.
              If the reviewers' recommendations differ, the Editor-in-Chief considers the reviewers' comments based on their scientific merit rather than the number of favorable or unfavorable recommendations. The Editor-in-Chief may request further revisions or clarification from the author when necessary to improve the quality of the manuscript.
              The editorial decision falls into one of three categories:
                     Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication.
                     Further Revision Required: The manuscript is returned to the author for further revision and is subsequently re-evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief.
                    Reject: The manuscript is rejected, and the author is informed of the decision.

              ***The editorial decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final.

Step 7: Acceptance Notification (1 week)
              The Managing and Production Editor formally notifies the author of the final decision and issues the acceptance letter.

Step 8: Copyediting, Typesetting, and Proofreading (1 week)
              The Managing and Production Editor copyedits and typesets the manuscript, checks the layout for accuracy, and performs a final quality check before publication. The author is asked to check and approve the final proof.

Step 9: Publication
              The Managing and Production Editor publishes the article online in the Journal of Yala Rajabhat University.

Note: The entire editorial process from submission to acceptance typically takes approximately 16–20 weeks (4–5 months). The actual duration may vary depending on the time required for initial screening, reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the number of revision and re-evaluation rounds, and the time taken by authors to complete their revisions. The timelines specified for the journal's editorial processes refer to working days and exclude weekends and public holidays, unless otherwise stated. Revision deadlines specified for authors are counted in calendar days.

Appeals
             Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief in accordance with the appeals procedure described in the Publication Ethics policy.