Impact Factor: 0.482
​5-Year Impact Factor: ​0.764
Journal Citation Reports® 2017
Related Journals
Related Journals
For Reviewers

Reviewers are required to follow TrJFAS' Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Once you've received a review invitation e-mail, please consider followings before acceptance:

> Deal manuscripts for review as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor and author.
> Keep the ideas obtained through peer review confidential, do not use them for personal advantage
> Provide objective peer review, clear and well-founded reports in a timely manner
> Excuse themselves from peer review, if feel unqualified to provide a relevant report, have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers

Once you’ve accepted to review the manuscript, please first check if the manuscript you’re reviewing is reporting an experiment or not. If your answer is ‘’yes’’, please first check the methodology:

> If the methodology is unreliable or/and discredited
> Is there any missing consequential process
> Is there any contradiction between conclusion and statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscript

For general review, please use our checklist for reviewers in TrJFAS

🗸 Summarize the article in a short paragraph. This shows the editor you have read and understood the research.
🗸 Give your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting,
🗸 Assess whether the article conforms to the journal-specific instructions (e.g. the guide for authors).
🗸 Give specific comments and suggestions about e.g. title, abstract: Does the title accurately reflect the content? Is the abstract complete and stand-alone?
🗸 Carefully review the methodology, statistical errors, results, conclusion/discussion, and references.
🗸 Raise your suspicions with the editor if you suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, providing as much detail as possible.
🗸 Be aware of the possibility for bias in your review. Unconscious bias can lead us all to make questionable decisions which impact negatively on the academic publishing process
🗴 Do not make ad-hominem comments.
🗴 Do not suggest that the author includes citations to your (or your associates’) work unless for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing citation counts or enhancing the visibility of your work (or that of your associates).