Peer Review Policy

At the Journal of Food Innovations, Nutrition, and Environmental Sciences (JFINES), we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and ensuring that all published research is of exceptional quality. To achieve this, we employ a rigorous double-blind peer review process that is designed to be fair, objective, and thorough.

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

JFINES operates a conventional double-blind peer review system. In this process, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. This approach is intended to eliminate bias, ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated solely on the basis of their academic merit, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

Key Features of the Double-Blind Peer Review:

  • Anonymity: Neither the reviewers nor the authors are aware of each other’s identities. This ensures that personal biases or conflicts of interest do not influence the review process.
  • Objective Evaluation: Reviewers are asked to focus on the content of the manuscript, assessing the quality of the research, the soundness of the methodology, the significance of the findings, and the clarity of the presentation.
  • Confidentiality: All submitted manuscripts and the details of the review process are treated with the utmost confidentiality. Reviewers are expected to respect this confidentiality and not share information related to the manuscript with anyone outside the review process.

Review Process Overview

  1. Initial Manuscript Submission: Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system. Each submission is checked for adherence to the journal’s formatting and ethical guidelines before it proceeds to the peer review stage.
  2. Editorial Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief and/or Associate Editors conduct an initial assessment of the manuscript to determine its suitability for the journal. Manuscripts that do not align with the journal’s scope or fail to meet basic quality standards may be desk rejected at this stage.
  3. Reviewer Selection: Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who have expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their qualifications, experience, and the absence of any conflicts of interest with the authors.
  4. Review Process: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide detailed feedback on the quality, originality, methodology, and relevance of the research. They also make recommendations regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication (e.g., accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject).
  5. Author Revisions: If revisions are recommended, the authors are given the opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments and submit a revised manuscript. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.
  6. Final Decision: Based on the reviewers’ recommendations and their own assessment, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding the manuscript’s publication. Authors are informed of this decision, along with any final revisions that may be required.
  7. Publication: Once a manuscript is accepted, it is processed for publication. Accepted manuscripts are published online and assigned to an upcoming issue of the journal.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the quality of JFINES. They are responsible for:

  • Providing Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should provide detailed, constructive comments that help authors improve their manuscripts, even if the manuscript is ultimately rejected.
  • Timely Responses: Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the timeframe specified by the journal to ensure a swift review process.
  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscripts they review as confidential documents and should not share or discuss the content with others outside the review process.

Conflict of Interest

To uphold the integrity of the review process, reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may influence their review. If a conflict is identified, the reviewer will be recused from the review process, and an alternative reviewer will be assigned.

Appeals and Complaints

JFINES recognizes that authors may occasionally disagree with the outcome of the review process. Authors who wish to appeal a decision or lodge a complaint about the review process are encouraged to contact the editorial office. Appeals will be considered by the Editor-in-Chief, and a thorough review will be conducted to ensure fairness and transparency.

 

 The detail of peer review procedure is as below.

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