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

1. Submission: An author submits a manuscript, along with other files as explaining in Author Guidelinesvia the ThaiJO system.

2. Initial editorial review: An assigned editorial member initially reviews the manuscript for the eligibility to the journal’s aims and scope, and conformity with author guideline. Then the editor make a decision as following categories.

• Rejected without external review: for inappropriate manuscripts or those not suitable with the journal’s aims and scope.
• Revision: for a manuscript suitable with the journal’s aims and scope, but in incomplete or inappropriate formatting.
• Send out for external review: for potential manuscripts align with the author guideline.

3. Peer review process: All potential manuscripts will be sent out and processed strictly following the double-blinded peer-reviewed process by the other two external academic/clinician reviewers who are working in relating areas. In general, the review process takes approximately four to six weeks for all submissions. Authors may suggest possible reviewers to evaluate their manuscript, as well as opposed reviewers. However, the appropriate reviewers would be decided by the assigned editor, and they will be blinded to the authors. In general, the opposed reviewers will be honored except in a field with a limited number of reviewers. Based on the reviewers' and editor's comments, the Editor or Associate Editor who is responsible for the manuscript will make the decision as one of the following:

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 re-submission, the author have to submit the following files to the ThaiJO submission system.

• A rebuttal letter clearly indicates point-by-point how the concerns raised by the reviewers have been managed. However, if any comments cannot be corrected, the authors can explain in the rebuttal letter.
• A marked-up version of the manuscript files that highlights the changes made in the files.
• A ‘clean’ (non-highlighted) version of the manuscript.

III. Reject: A manuscript that fails to address the concerns of reviewers or did not meet a standard of the journal. However, if the editor considers that the manuscript has potential for publication despite its current limitations, it may be rejected with invited for resubmission. 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 revisions.