The peer review process of Archives of Allied Health Sciences (Arch AHS) involves the following steps:

SUBMISSION: An author submits a manuscript, along with other required files as explained in the Author Guidelines, via the ThaiJO system.

INITIAL EDITORIAL REVIEW: An assigned editorial member initially reviews the manuscript for eligibility with respect to the journal’s aims and scope, and for conformity with the Author Guidelines. The editor then makes a decision in one of the following categories:

• Rejected without external review: For inappropriate manuscripts or those not suitable for the journal’s aims and scope.
• Revision: For manuscripts suitable for the journal’s aims and scope but with incomplete or inappropriate formatting.
• Send out for external review: For potential manuscripts that align with the Author Guidelines.

PEER REVIEW PROCESS: All potential submissions undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review by at least two external academic or clinical experts in the field. The review process typically takes four to six weeks. Authors may suggest potential reviewer or request to exclude specific individuals; however, the assigned editor makes the final decision on reviewers selection. Reviewers remain blinded tio the authors' identities. Requests to exclude specific reviewers will generally be honored, except in specialized fields with limited available experts.

Based on the reviewers’ and editor’s comments, the Editor or Associate Editor responsible for the manuscript will make one of the following decisions:

I. Accept: The manuscript will be published by the journal without the need for any changes or modifications.

II. Minor or Major Revision: The authors are given an opportunity to address the reviewers’ concerns by submitting a revised version. Upon resubmission, the authors must submit the following files to the ThaiJO submission system:

• A rebuttal letter that clearly indicates, point by point, how the concerns raised by the reviewers have been addressed. If any comments cannot be addressed, the authors should explain this in the rebuttal letter.
• A marked-up version of the manuscript that highlights all changes made.
• A ‘clean’ (non-highlighted) version of the manuscript.

III. Reject: The manuscript is rejected if it does not meet the standards of the journal or fails to address the reviewers’ concerns. However, if the editor considers that the manuscript has potential for publication despite its current limitations, it may be rejected with an invitation to resubmit. If the authors decide to resubmit, the manuscript will be treated as a new submission.

In general, the entire review process takes approximately two to four months, depending on the number of revision rounds.