Peer Review Process

The Journal of Food Innovation, Nutrition and Environmental Sciences (JFINES) applies editorial screening and peer review to manuscripts submitted for publication. The process is intended to support scholarly quality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, clarity, originality, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

JFINES normally uses a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process. Editorial decisions are made by the editorial team and are based on reviewer reports, editorial assessment, journal policy, ethical requirements, and the overall suitability of the manuscript for publication.

1. Manuscript Submission and Technical Check

Manuscripts are submitted through the journal’s online submission system. After submission, the editorial office conducts a technical and administrative check to confirm whether the submission is complete and prepared according to the journal’s requirements.

At this stage, the editorial office may check:

  • completeness of the submitted files;
  • use of the correct manuscript format;
  • inclusion of an anonymised main manuscript;
  • inclusion of a separate title page with author details;
  • presence of required declarations, including funding, conflicts of interest, author contributions, ethics approval, consent, and data availability where applicable;
  • compliance with the journal’s author guidelines;
  • readability of tables, figures, references, and supplementary files;
  • similarity or plagiarism concerns, where screening is applied.

Submissions that are incomplete or do not follow the journal’s requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before editorial assessment. Manuscripts with serious ethical, originality, or suitability concerns may be declined at this stage.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

After the technical check, the manuscript is assessed by the Editor-in-Chief, a Section Editor, an Associate Editor, or another designated handling editor.

The purpose of initial editorial screening is to determine whether the manuscript:

  • fits within the journal’s aims and scope;
  • addresses a relevant scholarly or applied problem;
  • has sufficient originality or contribution;
  • uses an appropriate study design or analytical approach;
  • provides adequate methodological detail;
  • is clearly written and logically organised;
  • meets basic ethical and reporting requirements;
  • is suitable to proceed to external peer review.

A manuscript may be declined without external review if it is outside the journal’s scope, substantially incomplete, methodologically weak, poorly prepared, not sufficiently original, ethically problematic, or unlikely to meet the journal’s publication standards after review.

3. Assignment to a Handling Editor or Subject Editor

Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are assigned to a handling editor or subject editor with relevant expertise. The handling editor may conduct a further assessment of the manuscript’s scholarly quality, methodological soundness, relevance, and suitability for peer review.

Where necessary, the handling editor may recommend desk rejection, request preliminary corrections from the authors, or proceed to invite external reviewers.

4. External Peer Review

Manuscripts selected for external review are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on criteria such as:

  • relevance to the journal’s scope;
  • originality and contribution to knowledge or practice;
  • appropriateness of the study design and methods;
  • adequacy of data analysis and interpretation;
  • ethical compliance;
  • clarity of presentation and organisation;
  • quality of tables, figures, and references;
  • strength of the discussion and conclusions;
  • acknowledgement of study limitations;
  • overall suitability for publication.

Reviewers are also asked to provide constructive comments for authors and confidential comments for the editor where necessary.

5. Double-Blind Review Requirements

JFINES normally applies double-blind review. Authors must therefore submit:

  • an anonymised main manuscript without author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, author contribution statements, or other directly identifying information;
  • a separate title page containing author names, affiliations, corresponding author details, declarations, acknowledgements, and other identifying information.

Authors should avoid wording that directly reveals their identity, institution, project, or prior unpublished work. However, the journal recognises that complete anonymity may not always be possible, especially in studies involving specific locations, datasets, clinical trials, public reports, preprints, conference presentations, or specialised research groups.

Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors. If a reviewer believes they know the identity of the authors and that this may affect impartiality, they should inform the editorial office.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers normally provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept;
  • Minor revision;
  • Major revision;
  • Resubmit for further review;
  • Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the editorial team after considering the reviewer reports, the handling editor’s assessment, journal policies, ethical issues, and the manuscript’s suitability for publication.

7. Editorial Decision

After reviewer reports have been received, the handling editor evaluates the comments and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief or authorised decision-making editor.

The editorial decision may be:

  • Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to final editorial and production checks.
  • Minor revision: the manuscript requires limited changes before it can be considered further.
  • Major revision: the manuscript requires substantial revision and may require further assessment.
  • Resubmit for further review: the manuscript requires significant revision and may be sent for additional peer review.
  • Reject: the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form or does not meet the journal’s requirements.

The decision letter is sent to the corresponding author together with reviewer comments, editorial comments, and revision instructions where applicable.

8. Revisions and Resubmission

Where revisions are requested, authors should submit:

  • a revised manuscript;
  • a point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments;
  • a clean version of the revised manuscript;
  • a marked or tracked-changes version where requested;
  • any additional files or clarifications requested by the editorial office.

Authors should address each comment clearly and respectfully. If authors disagree with a comment, they should provide a reasoned explanation supported by evidence or scholarly argument.

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the handling editor, returned to the original reviewers, or sent to additional reviewers depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.

9. Final Checks and Acceptance

A manuscript may be accepted only after the editorial team is satisfied that the required revisions have been addressed and that the manuscript meets the journal’s standards for publication.

Before publication, accepted manuscripts may undergo:

  • final editorial checks;
  • copyediting;
  • formatting and typesetting;
  • proofreading;
  • metadata preparation;
  • DOI registration where applicable;
  • verification of required declarations;
  • final production review.

Authors may be asked to review proofs before publication. Proof corrections should be limited to typographical, formatting, or factual errors unless substantial changes are approved by the editorial office.

10. Timeliness

JFINES aims to handle manuscripts efficiently while allowing adequate time for proper editorial assessment and peer review. Review and publication 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 being processed.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a fixed period. Manuscripts proceed to publication only after the required editorial, review, revision, and production steps have been completed.

11. Confidentiality

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

Reviewers must not use unpublished information, ideas, data, methods, or findings obtained through peer review for personal, professional, or commercial advantage.

12. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors are required to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that may affect the impartial handling or assessment of a manuscript.

A conflict of interest may include recent collaboration with the authors, shared institutional affiliation, supervisory relationships, personal relationships, financial interests, academic competition, or involvement in the research being reviewed.

Where a conflict of interest is identified, the editorial office may assign another reviewer or transfer editorial handling to another editor.

13. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision or raise a concern about the review process may contact the editorial office with a clear, evidence-based explanation.

Appeals will normally be considered where there is evidence of a procedural error, factual misunderstanding, conflict of interest, or concern about the fairness of the review process. Appeals are not intended to provide repeated review of manuscripts that were declined on scholarly, methodological, ethical, or scope-related grounds.

Where appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief may consult another editor, request clarification from reviewers, or seek an additional independent review. The outcome of an appeal may be to uphold the original decision, invite revision, request further review, or issue another appropriate editorial decision.