Peer Review Policy
          YRUJST 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 section editor on the basis of 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.
          Manuscripts submitted by the editor-in-chief, section editors, or other members of the editorial board are handled by another editor who has no conflict of interest, and the submitting editor is excluded from all stages of the review and decision process.

Step 1: Submission
          The author submits the manuscript, including an anonymized version, through the ThaiJO system.

Step 2: Initial Evaluation (1 week) 
          The manuscript undergoes three stages of initial screening before peer review. During this period, the manuscript is also checked for similarity using CopyCatch, developed by NECTEC and provided through ThaiJO.
               2.1 Editor-in-Chief Evaluation: The editor-in-chief evaluates the manuscript's overall quality and relevance to the journal's scope. If the manuscript is suitable, the editor-in-chief assigns it to the section editor whose expertise best matches the subject of the manuscript. Otherwise, the manuscript is rejected without peer review, and the author is informed.
               2.2 Section Editor Evaluation: The section editor evaluates the scientific quality of the manuscript within the relevant discipline and determines whether it should proceed to peer review. If not, the manuscript is rejected without peer review, and the author is informed.
               2.3 Technical Check: The managing and production editor checks the manuscript's compliance with the journal template and Author Guidelines, the completeness of the required documents, and the result of the similarity check. If revisions are required, including when the similarity index exceeds 25% (excluding references), the manuscript is returned to the author for correction and must be resubmitted before proceeding to Step 3. Revised manuscripts are re-checked for similarity before being sent for peer review. Where there is evidence of plagiarism, the case is referred to the editor-in-chief, and the manuscript is rejected.

Step 3: Assignment of Reviewers
          The section editor assigns at least two qualified reviewers to evaluate the manuscript, and 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.

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 has requested to see the revised manuscript, it is returned to that reviewer for re-evaluation. This process is repeated until the reviewer is satisfied with the revisions, after which the manuscript proceeds to Step 6.
          If no reviewer has requested to see the revised manuscript, it proceeds directly to Step 6. (If the reviewers recommend rejection, the manuscript proceeds directly to Step 6 without revision.)

Step 6: Section Editor Evaluation and Recommendation (1 week)  
         The section editor verifies that the revised manuscript and the author's point-by-point response adequately address all of the reviewers' comments. If the reviewers' recommendations differ, the section editor evaluates the reviewers' comments on the basis of their scientific merit, rather than the number of favorable or unfavorable recommendations. If the section editor does not have sufficient expertise to resolve the disagreement, an additional reviewer with relevant expertise is invited before a recommendation is made. Where necessary to improve the quality of the manuscript, the section editor may request additional information or further revisions from the author. In all cases, the section editor provides a written justification for the recommendation, which is reviewed by the editor-in-chief before the author is informed. The decision falls into one of three categories:
               Proceed: The manuscript proceeds to Step 7.
               Further revision required: The manuscript is returned to the author for further revision and is then re-checked by the section editor.
               Reject: The manuscript is rejected, and the author is informed of the decision with the reviewers' comments.

Step 7: English Language Editing (1 week) 
         The manuscript is checked by the journal's English language editor for grammar, clarity, and consistency of academic English.
               No revision required: The manuscript proceeds to Step 8.
               Language revision required: The manuscript is returned to the author for language revision, which must be submitted within (1 week), and is then re-checked by the English language editor.

Step 8: Final Editorial Review (1 week)  
          The editor-in-chief performs a final review of the manuscript.
               Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication.
               Further revision required: The manuscript is returned to the author for further revision, which must be submitted within 1 week, and is then re-checked by the section editor.
               Reject: The manuscript is rejected, and the author is informed.

Step 9: Acceptance Notification (1 week)
          The managing and production editor formally notifies the author of the final decision and issues the acceptance letter.

Step 10: 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 11: Publication
          The managing and production editor publishes the article online in the YRU Journal of Science and Technology.

Note: The entire process from submission to acceptance typically takes approximately 16–20 weeks, after which accepted articles are published in the next available issue. All durations for the journal's editorial processes refer to working days and exclude weekends and public holidays. Revision deadlines for authors are counted on calendar days. However, the actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the number of revision and re-evaluation rounds required, and the time taken by authors to complete their revisions.

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.