Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Food Innovation, Nutrition and Environmental Sciences (JFINES) applies editorial screening and peer review to manuscripts submitted for publication. The purpose of peer review is to support the quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, clarity, and relevance of manuscripts considered for publication in the journal.

JFINES is committed to a fair, transparent, confidential, and academically rigorous review process. Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly merit of the manuscript, its relevance to the journal’s scope, the quality of the research, compliance with ethical standards, and the recommendations of qualified reviewers.

Peer Review Model

JFINES normally uses a double-blind peer-review process. Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process.

The aim of double-blind review is to reduce the possibility of personal, institutional, geographic, gender-based, or professional bias during manuscript evaluation. However, JFINES recognises that anonymity cannot always be fully guaranteed, especially where manuscripts are based on highly specific datasets, locations, institutions, previous conference presentations, preprints, or publicly available project information.

In exceptional cases, the journal may use another appropriate peer-review model where this is necessary and where it does not compromise editorial integrity. Any such decision will be guided by the editorial team.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening before they are sent for external review. This screening may be conducted by the Editor-in-Chief, an Associate Editor, a Section Editor, or a designated handling editor.

At this stage, the journal assesses whether the manuscript:

  • fits the aims and scope of JFINES;
  • follows the journal’s author guidelines;
  • contains the required sections and declarations;
  • appears to be original and not under consideration elsewhere;
  • meets basic standards of scholarly writing and presentation;
  • includes appropriate ethical approval and consent statements where required;
  • provides sufficient methodological detail for evaluation;
  • complies with the journal’s policies on plagiarism, authorship, conflicts of interest, and research ethics.

Manuscripts may be returned to authors for correction before review, declined at editorial screening, or sent for peer review. A decision to decline a manuscript at this stage may be made where the submission is outside the journal’s scope, substantially incomplete, ethically problematic, insufficiently developed, or unlikely to meet the journal’s publication standards after review.

Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their academic or professional knowledge of the manuscript’s topic, methodological experience, publication record, and absence of known conflicts of interest.

Where appropriate, the editorial team may invite additional reviewers, especially where the manuscript is interdisciplinary, methodologically complex, or where reviewer reports differ substantially.

Authors may be asked to suggest potential reviewers during submission. Suggested reviewers may be considered by the editorial team, but the journal is not obliged to use them. Authors should not suggest reviewers with whom they have close personal, institutional, supervisory, financial, or recent collaborative relationships.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide fair, constructive, evidence-based, and timely evaluations. Reviewer comments should help the editor make an informed decision and, where possible, help authors improve the manuscript.

Reviewers are asked to assess, where applicable:

  • relevance to the journal’s scope;
  • originality and contribution to knowledge;
  • appropriateness of the study design and methodology;
  • adequacy of data analysis and interpretation;
  • ethical compliance;
  • clarity and organisation of the manuscript;
  • adequacy of literature coverage;
  • validity of conclusions;
  • presentation of tables, figures, and references;
  • limitations of the study;
  • overall suitability for publication.

Reviewers should avoid personal criticism, discriminatory language, unsupported claims, or comments that are not relevant to the scholarly evaluation of the manuscript.

Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers, editors, and editorial staff must not share, discuss, copy, use, or distribute manuscript content outside the review process, unless authorised by the editorial office.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information, data, ideas, methods, or findings from manuscripts they review for personal, professional, or commercial advantage.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their ability to provide an objective review.

Conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to:

  • recent collaboration with any of the authors;
  • shared institutional affiliation;
  • current or recent supervisory relationship;
  • personal relationship;
  • financial or commercial interest;
  • academic rivalry;
  • direct involvement in the work being reviewed;
  • any circumstance that may compromise impartiality.

Where a conflict of interest is identified, the reviewer should decline the invitation or notify the editorial office immediately. The editorial team will determine whether the reviewer should be replaced.

Editors are also required to declare conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where impartiality may be compromised.

Peer Review Outcomes

After peer review, the editorial decision may be one of the following:

  • Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to any final editorial or production checks.
  • Minor Revision: the manuscript requires limited changes before it can be considered for acceptance.
  • Major Revision: the manuscript requires substantial revision and may be reassessed after resubmission.
  • Resubmit for Review: the manuscript requires significant revision and may need further external review.
  • Reject: the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form or does not meet the journal’s requirements.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the authorised handling editor, based on reviewer reports, editorial assessment, journal policy, ethical considerations, and the manuscript’s suitability for publication.

Revisions and Author Responses

Where revisions are requested, authors are expected to submit:

  • a revised manuscript;
  • a response letter addressing each reviewer and editor comment;
  • a clean version of the revised manuscript;
  • a marked or tracked-changes version where requested.

Authors should respond respectfully and clearly to all comments. Where authors disagree with a reviewer comment, they should explain their reasoning in a scholarly and evidence-based manner.

Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by the handling editor, returned to the original reviewers, or sent to additional reviewers where necessary.

Editorial Decision-Making

Editorial decisions are made independently of authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, seniority, religion, political views, personal characteristics, or ability to pay publication fees.

For manuscripts subject to an Article Processing Charge, payment is requested only after acceptance. APC payment does not influence editorial assessment, peer review, acceptance, rejection, or publication decisions.

The journal reserves the right to reject a manuscript at any stage before publication if serious concerns arise regarding originality, ethical approval, authorship, data integrity, conflicts of interest, plagiarism, duplicate submission, or other matters affecting the reliability of the work.

Review Timelines

JFINES aims to handle manuscripts in a timely manner while allowing sufficient time for careful peer review. Review timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the quality of the submission, the extent of revisions required, author response time, and the volume of submissions under consideration.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a fixed timeframe. Manuscripts proceed to publication only after completing the required editorial, peer-review, revision, and production processes.

Post-Acceptance Processing

After acceptance, manuscripts undergo final editorial and production checks. These may include copyediting, formatting, typesetting, proofreading, metadata preparation, DOI registration where applicable, and online publication.

Authors may be asked to review proofs before publication. Proof corrections should be limited to typographical, formatting, or factual corrections and should not introduce substantial new content unless approved by the editorial office.

Appeals and Complaints

JFINES recognises that authors may occasionally disagree with an editorial decision or have concerns about the review process. Authors may submit an appeal or complaint to the editorial office, clearly explaining the basis of their concern and providing supporting information where relevant.

Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or another senior editor who was not directly involved in the original decision, where appropriate. Appeals will normally be considered only where there is evidence of a significant procedural error, misunderstanding, factual error, conflict of interest, or concern about the fairness of the review process.

Appeals are not intended to provide repeated rounds of review for manuscripts that were rejected on scholarly or methodological grounds. The outcome of an appeal may be to uphold the original decision, request further review, invite revision, or issue another appropriate editorial decision.

Research Integrity and Publication Ethics

JFINES expects authors, reviewers, and editors to follow recognised standards of responsible research and publication ethics. Concerns relating to plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, data falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, authorship disputes, undeclared conflicts of interest, ethical approval, or other forms of misconduct will be handled according to the journal’s publication ethics policies.

Where necessary, the journal may request clarifications, supporting documents, ethics approval letters, raw data, authorship statements, or other relevant information before making or finalising a decision.

Credits

This peer review policy and procedure is based on https://www.elsevier.com/en-gb/reviewers/what-is-peer-review and https://grants.nih.gov/policy/peer/index.htm#new