Login or Register to make a submission.

As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.

  • The submission is not previously published or under consideration by another journal (provide explanation if necessary).
  • The file format is OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, RTF, or WordPerfect.
  • References include URLs where available.
  • The text is single-spaced, 12-point font, uses italics (not underlining, except for URLs), and integrates illustrations, figures, and tables within the text at appropriate points.
  • The manuscript adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines found in the Journal's About section.
  • If submitting to a peer-reviewed section, authors have followed the instructions in Ensuring a Blind Review.

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 ASI Template 2025 (Download)
    • 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.
  1. Acknowledgments:
    • Include acknowledgments for people, grants, funds, etc., just before references.
    • Write funding agencies, scholarships, etc., in full.
  2. References:
    • Cite references in APA 6th edition in the manuscript.

Ensure adherence to these guidelines for a successful submission. For more details, refer to the Author Guidelines.

The style of citation is as follows:

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.

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.

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

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
At ASI, we recognize the invaluable contribution of our peer reviewers in upholding the quality and timeliness of our journal. We extend our heartfelt gratitude for your dedicated efforts in assessing manuscripts. Peer reviewers play a pivotal role by critically evaluating manuscripts in their respective specialty fields. Your constructive feedback is crucial in providing authors with insights to enhance the strength, quality, relevance, and originality of their work.

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 we do not provide monetary compensation to our 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.