Menu

Journal of Forensic and Allied Sciences (JFAS)

The Journal of Forensic and Allied Sciences (JFAS) upholds a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, objectivity, and integrity of scholarly work. Reviewers are integral to this process, providing expert assessments of submitted manuscripts while preserving strict confidentiality and ethical standards.

Double-Blind Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted to JFAS undergo double-blind peer review. This means that both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous to one another throughout the review process. The anonymity fosters objective and unbiased evaluation, free from potential conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are expected to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and adhere to them fully during the evaluation of manuscripts.

Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers are requested to assess submitted manuscripts based on the following key considerations:

1. Originality and Significance

  • Does the manuscript present original work?

  • Is the research novel or does it offer a new perspective or value to the field?

  • Does it contribute meaningfully to forensic science or allied disciplines?

2. Scientific Rigor and Methodology

  • Are the research design and methodology sound and appropriate for the study’s aims?

  • Are statistical methods clearly described and accurately applied?

  • Are experiments, observations, and analyses replicable and sufficiently documented?

3. Interpretation and Presentation of Results

  • Are the results interpreted accurately and supported by the data?

  • Are the conclusions justified and consistent with the findings?

  • Are limitations acknowledged appropriately?

4. Ethical Compliance

  • For studies involving human or animal subjects, is ethical approval clearly stated?

  • Are appropriate ethical guidelines followed, including informed consent where applicable?

  • Are conflicts of interest disclosed by the authors?

5. Reporting Standards

  • Does the manuscript follow recognized reporting standards (e.g., CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE)?

  • Does the manuscript adhere to transparency in data availability, including supplementary material or datasets where necessary?

6. Clarity and Language

  • Is the manuscript written in clear, concise, and grammatically correct English?

  • Is the structure logical and coherent?

  • Are tables, figures, and references complete and correctly formatted?

7. Plagiarism and Redundancy

  • Is the manuscript free from plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or redundant publication?

  • Are all sources appropriately cited and acknowledged?

Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct

  • The review process is strictly confidential. Manuscripts must not be shared, discussed, or used in any way by the reviewer outside of the review process.

  • If a reviewer wishes to consult a colleague for expert input, they must first seek permission from the Editor-in-Chief.

  • Reviewers must not disclose the content, findings, or authorship (if known) of any manuscript prior to publication.

  • Reviewers are expected to complete reviews in a timely manner, typically within 2 to 3 weeks of assignment.

Use of AI-Assisted Technologies in Peer Review

Reviewers must not use generative AI or AI-assisted tools to produce or assist in the writing of peer review reports. Such tools may compromise the confidentiality, originality, and ethical standards of the review process. All review assessments must be conducted personally by the assigned reviewer, based on their expertise and critical evaluation.

Professional and Ethical Expectations

Reviewers should:

  • Provide constructive, respectful, and unbiased feedback.

  • Avoid personal criticism or language that may be perceived as hostile.

  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest and decline review assignments where impartiality cannot be ensured.

  • Refrain from suggesting excessive or unnecessary self-citations.

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers will be asked to make one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept as is

  • Minor revision

  • Major revision

  • Reject

In all cases, a detailed rationale for the recommendation must be provided to assist both editors and authors.

Reviewer Recognition

JFAS acknowledges the valuable contribution of its reviewers in maintaining the quality and credibility of the journal. Reviewers may request an official certificate of review and may be recognized annually in the journal’s acknowledgments (unless anonymity is requested).

Contact

For any queries related to the peer review process or to express interest in becoming a reviewer, please contact:

Editorial Office
Journal of Forensic and Allied Sciences (JFAS)
Email: Shodhforensics@gmail.com