Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process
At the Journal of Food Innovations, Nutrition, and Environmental Sciences (JFINES), we uphold a rigorous peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality and impactful research. Our process is designed to be fair and unbiased, while maintaining confidentiality and research integrity.

1) Initial Manuscript Screening

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team to confirm: scope fit, completeness, adherence to author guidelines, and the presence of required statements (e.g., ethics approval/consent where applicable, funding and conflict-of-interest disclosures). Manuscripts may also undergo similarity screening. Submissions that do not meet these basic requirements may be returned for correction or desk rejected.

Double-blind requirement: authors must upload an anonymised main manuscript (no names, affiliations, acknowledgements, or identifying statements) and a separate title page containing author details and declarations.

2) Subject Editor Evaluation

Manuscripts passing initial screening are assigned to a subject editor with relevant expertise. The subject editor evaluates the manuscript’s originality, scientific soundness, and relevance to the journal’s scope. If the manuscript is unsuitable or has major concerns, it may be rejected at this stage. Suitable manuscripts proceed to external peer review.

3) External Peer Review

JFINES employs a double-blind peer review system, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process. Manuscripts are typically reviewed by at least two independent reviewers selected for subject expertise and methodological fit.

Reviewers are invited to assess the manuscript based on:

  • Scientific rigor and methodology: appropriateness and soundness of methods and analyses

  • Originality and contribution: novelty and value to the field

  • Clarity and presentation: logical structure and quality of reporting

  • Relevance to scope: alignment with food innovation, nutrition, and environmental sciences

4) Editorial Decision

After reviews are received, the subject editor assesses the reports and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. Editorial decisions consider reviewer feedback but remain the responsibility of the editorial team. The decision (Accept / Minor revision / Major revision / Reject) is communicated to the authors together with reviewer comments.

5) Revisions and Resubmission

If revisions are required, authors are expected to submit a point-by-point response to reviewer comments and a revised manuscript. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed editorially depending on the extent of changes.

6) Timeliness and Confidentiality

JFINES values timely review and aims to communicate an initial decision as efficiently as possible, subject to reviewer availability and manuscript complexity. The entire process is conducted under strict confidentiality. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or use manuscript content prior to publication.

7) Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal a decision or lodge a complaint may contact the editorial office with a clear, evidence-based rationale. Appeals are handled by the Editor-in-Chief (and may involve additional editorial consultation or further review where justified).