Author Guidelines
Submission Guidelines for Asia Social Issues (ASI)
1
Policy and Manuscript Submission
- ASI, an online journal with no Submission Fee & Article Processing Charges, employs a double-blinded review system.
- Published by the College of Graduate Studies at Walailak University, it releases 6 issues annually, covering all social science areas.
- Manuscripts should be submitted online at: Submission Link.
- Peer review involves assessment by experts in the field. Authors are encouraged to suggest 3–5 referees.
- Papers aim for a 6–8 week review period, and accepted papers appear in the next available issue.
2
Manuscript Preparation
- Manuscripts are double-spaced in Times New Roman, 12 pt, with a 3-cm margin on a standard A4 page.
- Follow the template: Include:
- Concise title.
- Authors' names.
- Institution names and addresses.
- Corresponding author's email.
- Abstract: 250 words maximum, followed by 4–6 keywords.
- Text structure: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion, Conclusions.
-
General points for authors:
- Spell-check and grammar-check before submission.
- Use either American or British English consistently.
3
Acknowledgments
- Include acknowledgments for people, grants, funds, etc., just before references.
- Write funding agencies, scholarships, etc., in full.
4
Declaration of Generative AI in Scientific Writing
- Generative AI tools may be used only to improve the readability and language of a manuscript.
- Such tools must be applied with human oversight and control. Authors remain fully responsible for the content.
- AI tools must not be listed as authors or co-authors.
- If AI-assisted technologies were used, a declaration must be included in the manuscript, in a dedicated section before the references.
5
CRediT Author Statement
Firstname lastname 1: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software. Firstname lastname 2: Data curation, Writing- Original draft preparation. Firstname lastname 3: Visualization, Investigation. Firstname lastname 4: Supervision. Firstname lastname 5: Software, Validation. Firstname lastname 6: Writing- Reviewing and Editing.
Note: See the CRediT taxonomy for role definitions. Authorship is reserved for substantial contributors only.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Conceptualization | Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims |
| Methodology | Development or design of methodology; creation of models |
| Software | Programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of the computer code and supporting algorithms; testing of existing code components |
| Validation | Verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs |
| Formal analysis | Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data |
| Investigation | Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection |
| Resources | Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools |
| Data Curation | Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data and maintain research data (including software code, where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later reuse |
| Writing - Original Draft | Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including substantive translation) |
| Writing - Review & Editing | Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision – including pre- or post-publication stages |
| Visualization | Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/data presentation |
| Supervision | Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team |
| Project administration | Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution |
| Funding acquisition | Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication |
6
References
- References should follow the standards summarized in the APA 6th edition with "ASI Styles"
The style of citation is as follows
Journal
Cheung, J. M. Y., Bartlett, D. J., Armour, C. L., Laba, T. L., & Saini, B. (2018). To drug or not to drug: A qualitative study of patients' decision-making processes for managing insomnia. Behavioral Sleep Medicine, 16(1), 1–26.
Book
De Vaus, D. A. (2014). Surveys in social research (1st ed.). Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Book Chapter
McKenzie, H., Boughton, M., Hayes, L., & Forsyth, S. (2008). Explaining the complexities and value of nursing practice and knowledge (pp. 209–224). In Morley, I., & Crouch, M. (Eds.). Knowledge as value: Illumination through critical prisms. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi.
Proceedings
Smith, P. L. (1999). Motivation for exercise (pp. 258–298). In Proceedings of the Conference on Health and Fitness. Christchurch, New Zealand: University of Canterbury.
Internet Website
HealthTimes. (2015). The future of aged care nursing in Australia. Retrieved from https://healthtimes.com.au/hub/aged-care/2/news/nc1/the-future-of-aged-care-nursing-in-australia/495
Thesis
Schneider, A. T. (1997). A study of an innovative approach to teacher education in Pakistan (Doctoral dissertations). Australia: University of Melbourne. Pingley, T. (2017). The impact of witnessing domestic violence on children: A systematic review (Master's thesis). USA: St. Catherine University.
Secondary Sources
Cited in text: Arnett (2000, as cited in Claiborne & Drewery, 2010). References: Claiborne, L., & Drewery, W. (2010). Human development: Family, place, culture. North Ryde: NSW, McGraw-Hill.
Reviewer Guidelines
Key Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers
- Critical Evaluation: Read and evaluate manuscripts thoroughly.
- Constructive Feedback: Provide respectful and constructive feedback to authors.
- Identify Strengths and Weaknesses: Discuss both strengths and weaknesses of the article.
- Enhancement Recommendations: Suggest ways to improve the overall quality of the work.
- Assess Relevancy and Originality: Evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.
ASI operates on a voluntary basis and does not provide monetary compensation to peer reviewers. Your willingness to support ASI demonstrates your commitment to improving the journal's quality and fostering academic excellence.
Before Reviewing
1
Expertise Match
- Confirm the manuscript aligns with your expertise.
- Notify the editor if the topic doesn't match; recommend an alternate reviewer.
2
Review Timeframe
- Aim to complete reviews within three weeks.
- If unable to meet the deadline, inform the editor promptly; suggest an alternate reviewer.
- Communicate changes in availability.
3
Potential Conflicts of Interest
- Disclose conflicts of interest to the editors.
- Contact the editorial office with any questions about conflicts of interest.
During the Review
1
Content Quality and Originality
- Evaluate if the article is novel and warrants publication.
- Check if the article adheres to journal standards.
- Assess the importance of the research question.
- Consider the originality in the context of the field.
2
Organization and Clarity
- Assess the clarity of the title, abstract, and introduction.
- Examine if methods are well-explained and replicable.
- Evaluate the organization of results, discussion, and conclusions.
- Scrutinize tables, figures, and images for appropriateness and clarity.
3
Ethical Issues
- Report suspicions of substantial plagiarism; cite previous work.
- Discuss suspicions of fraudulent results with the editor.
- Identify ethical concerns, especially in medical research.
Reviewer's Recommendations
- Maintain confidentiality; avoid discussing submissions with third parties.
- Consult the editor before discussing the article with colleagues.
- Do not contact the author directly.
- Complete the "Reviewer's Comments" form by the due date.
- Your recommendation strongly influences the final decision.
- Provide thorough, honest feedback; it is highly appreciated.
- Clearly indicate sections of comments for editors and those for authors.
- Contact the editorial office with any questions or concerns.