Guidelines for Reviewers

The Journal of Food Innovation, Nutrition and Environmental Sciences (JFINES) relies on qualified reviewers to support the quality, integrity, and scholarly relevance of the manuscripts it considers for publication. Peer review helps the editorial team make informed decisions and assists authors in improving the clarity, methodological quality, and overall contribution of their work.

These guidelines outline the responsibilities of reviewers invited to evaluate manuscripts submitted to JFINES.

Role of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to provide fair, constructive, confidential, and evidence-based assessments of manuscripts. Reviewer comments should help the editorial team evaluate whether a manuscript is suitable for publication and, where appropriate, guide authors in improving their work.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Final editorial decisions are made by the editorial team based on reviewer reports, editorial assessment, journal policies, ethical requirements, and the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope.

Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept an invitation only if they:

  • have relevant expertise in the subject area or methodology of the manuscript;
  • can provide an objective and unbiased assessment;
  • have no actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest;
  • can complete the review within the requested timeframe;
  • are willing to treat the manuscript and review process as confidential.

If a reviewer is unable to review the manuscript, they should decline the invitation promptly. Where possible, reviewers may suggest alternative qualified reviewers who do not have conflicts of interest with the authors or the manuscript.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, discuss, or use the manuscript content outside the peer-review process unless authorised by the editorial office.

Reviewers must not use unpublished data, ideas, methods, findings, or interpretations from a manuscript for personal, professional, academic, or commercial advantage.

All communication about the manuscript should be conducted through the journal’s editorial office or online submission system. Reviewers should not contact authors directly.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting or while conducting a 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 research;
  • any situation that may affect impartiality.

If a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer should decline the review invitation or inform the editorial office immediately. The editorial team will decide whether the reviewer should continue or be replaced.

Double-Blind Review

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.

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

Reviewers should also avoid including identifying information in their comments to authors.

Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript appears to comply with relevant ethical standards. Where applicable, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript includes appropriate statements on:

  • ethical approval for studies involving human participants or animals;
  • informed consent;
  • permissions for use of data, images, tools, or copyrighted material;
  • conflicts of interest;
  • funding sources;
  • data availability;
  • authorship and contributor roles;
  • trial registration or protocol registration, where relevant.

If reviewers identify or suspect ethical concerns, they should report them confidentially to the editorial office. Such concerns may include plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unethical research practices, or concerns about authorship.

Reviewers should not investigate suspected misconduct independently. The editorial office will handle such concerns according to the journal’s publication ethics procedures.

Conducting the Review

Reviewers should provide an objective, balanced, and respectful assessment of the manuscript. Reviews should focus on the scholarly content of the work rather than the personal characteristics, nationality, institutional affiliation, seniority, gender, religion, political views, or background of the authors.

When reviewing a manuscript, reviewers may consider the following areas:

Relevance to the Journal

  • Does the manuscript fit the aims and scope of JFINES?
  • Is the topic relevant to food science, food technology, nutrition, agricultural sciences, environmental sciences, sustainable food systems, or related interdisciplinary fields?
  • Is the manuscript likely to be of interest to the journal’s readership?

Originality and Contribution

  • Does the manuscript present original findings, analysis, interpretation, or synthesis?
  • Does it contribute to existing knowledge, practice, policy, innovation, or methodology?
  • Are the research problem and objectives clearly stated?

Methodological Quality

  • Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
  • Are the methods described clearly and in sufficient detail?
  • Are the sampling procedures, data collection methods, laboratory procedures, analytical methods, or review methods appropriate?
  • Are the statistical or qualitative analyses suitable and correctly interpreted?

Results and Interpretation

  • Are the results clearly presented?
  • Are tables and figures necessary, accurate, and understandable?
  • Are the findings supported by the data?
  • Are conclusions consistent with the results?
  • Are limitations acknowledged appropriately?

Literature and Referencing

  • Does the manuscript engage with relevant and current literature?
  • Are key studies cited appropriately?
  • Are references accurate and consistent with the journal’s referencing style?

Clarity and Presentation

  • Is the manuscript logically organised?
  • Is the writing clear and scholarly?
  • Are the abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion appropriate for the manuscript type?
  • Are there areas where the manuscript requires language editing, restructuring, or clarification?

Providing Constructive Feedback

Reviewer comments should be clear, specific, and useful. Reviewers are encouraged to identify both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.

Where revisions are recommended, reviewers should explain what needs to be improved and, where possible, suggest how the authors may address the concern. Comments should be professional and respectful, even when major weaknesses are identified.

Reviewers should avoid vague statements such as “the manuscript is poor” or “the methods are weak” without explaining the specific concern. Instead, reviewers should provide enough detail to help the editor and authors understand the basis of the recommendation.

Comments to Authors and Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may provide two types of comments:

Comments to Authors

These should be constructive, respectful, and focused on improving the manuscript. They may address methodology, analysis, interpretation, organisation, clarity, referencing, tables, figures, and relevance to the journal.

Confidential Comments to the Editor

These may include concerns that should not be shared directly with authors, such as suspected ethical issues, possible conflicts of interest, doubts about originality, concerns about data reliability, or advice on editorial decision-making.

Confidential comments should not contradict the comments provided to authors. If a reviewer recommends rejection, the reasons should normally be clear enough in the comments to authors, unless there are confidential ethical or integrity concerns.

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may be asked to recommend one of the following decisions:

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

The recommendation should be consistent with the reviewer’s comments. However, reviewer recommendations are advisory, and the final decision rests with the editorial team.

Timeliness

Timely reviews are important for authors and for the efficient management of the journal. Reviewers should complete their reviews within the timeframe specified by the journal.

If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should inform the editorial office as soon as possible. The editorial office may extend the deadline or invite another reviewer.

Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Reviewers should not upload submitted manuscripts, figures, tables, data, or supplementary files into artificial intelligence tools or third-party platforms that may store, process, or reuse the content, unless this has been explicitly authorised by the journal.

If reviewers use any digital or language-support tools to assist with grammar, clarity, or organisation of their review comments, they remain fully responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of the review.

Manuscript content must remain confidential throughout the review process.

Recognition of Reviewers

JFINES values the contribution of reviewers to the scholarly publishing process. Reviewers who consistently provide timely, thorough, fair, and constructive reviews may be considered for future editorial roles or other appropriate forms of recognition, subject to journal policy.

Reviewer recognition will be handled in a way that does not compromise the confidentiality of the peer-review process.

Declining a Review Invitation

Reviewers who are unable to review a manuscript should decline the invitation promptly. When declining, reviewers may suggest alternative experts who are suitably qualified and free from conflicts of interest.

Suggested reviewers should not be close collaborators, students, supervisors, colleagues from the same institution, or individuals with personal, financial, or professional relationships that may compromise impartiality.

Final Note to Reviewers

JFINES appreciates the time, expertise, and professional judgement contributed by reviewers. Careful and constructive peer review supports the quality of published research and strengthens the integrity of scholarly communication in food science, nutrition, agricultural sciences, environmental sciences, and related fields.