Review Guidelines

Home » Submission » Review Guidelines

Understanding Your Role as a Reviewer

The Peer Review Process is crucial for maintaining the high research standards published in the Current Research in Nutrition and Food Science Journal. As a reviewer, you help ensure that only high-quality research is published by critically evaluating manuscripts and providing constructive feedback. Your role involves assessing the originality, significance, and quality of research, which is essential for upholding the integrity of our journal.

Peer Review Process

Peer review is essential to ensuring the highest quality standards for our published papers. All manuscripts submitted to our journal go through a mandatory peer review process. This process includes an initial quality check to ensure the paper adheres to the journal’s format, a plagiarism check using iThenticate, and verification of copyright information. Following this, the manuscript undergoes a double-blind peer review by two independent reviewers. Based on their feedback, authors may be required to make revisions. The revised manuscript is then sent to the editorial cum advisory board for the final recommendation. To know more about the process, click here.

Reviewer’s Role and Responsibilities

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the integrity and quality of scholarly publications. Their primary responsibility is to evaluate manuscripts for their originality, methodological rigor, significance, and relevance to the journal’s scope. Reviewers provide constructive feedback to authors, helping them improve the clarity and impact of their work. They assess the research’s validity, identify potential ethical issues, and ensure the manuscript meets the journal’s standards. By offering unbiased and thorough reviews, reviewers contribute to the advancement of knowledge within their field and uphold the credibility of the academic publication process.

As a reviewer, you are expected to:

Maintain Confidentiality: Keep all details of the manuscript and review process confidential.
Declare Conflicts of Interest: Disclose any potential conflicts that may influence your review.
Provide Constructive Feedback: Offer detailed, respectful, and helpful feedback to aid authors in improving their manuscripts.
Follow Guidelines: Adhere to the journal’s review guidelines and complete your review within the specified timeframe.

Additionally, reviewers should meet the following criteria:

Have no conflicts of interest with any of the authors.
Not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors.
Have not collaborated with the authors on publications within the last three years.
Hold a PhD.
Possess relevant experience and a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper, as evidenced by Scopus or ORCID profiles.
Be recognized as a scholar in the field related to the submitted manuscript.
Hold an official and recognized academic affiliation.

By meeting these criteria and fulfilling their responsibilities, reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the integrity and quality of scholarly publications.

Benefits of Being a Reviewer

As a valued reviewer for our journal, you play a critical role in upholding the quality of academic publishing. In recognition of your contributions, we offer several benefits designed to acknowledge your efforts and enhance your professional profile. These benefits include:

Publication Waiver: Receive a 30% waiver on article processing charges for any articles you submit as an author.
Certificates: Obtain a review certificate for each completed review. Additionally, after completing 5 successful reviews, you will be awarded an Outstanding Reviewer Certificate for your dedication and significant contributions to the field.
Reviewer Panel Inclusion: Be included in the list of reviewers published in every issue.
Web of Science Profile Creation: Get a chance to create a profile on Web of Science and register your reviews. Reviewers can submit their reviews to the Web of Science Academy (formerly Publons Academy), becoming part of a top researchers’ community and gaining recognition for their review contributions to various journals.
ORCID Registration: Create an ORCID profile and link your reviews to your ORCID profile for wider recognition.
Reviewer of the Month: Stand a chance to be named ‘Reviewer of the Month’ and be featured on the journal’s social media channels.

Reviewer’s Panel

The Reviewer’s Panel consists of esteemed scholars who contribute to the rigorous evaluation of manuscripts. Reviewer profiles are reviewed periodically to ensure their continued relevance and engagement. Active and highly rated reviewers may be considered for promotion to the Editorial cum Advisory Panel, where they will take on additional responsibilities in guiding the journal’s editorial decisions and strategic direction. Meet our Reviewer’s Panel. To become a member of our esteemed reviewer’s panel click here to register.

Reviewer Guidelines

The Reviewer Guidelines provide essential instructions for conducting a thorough and impartial review. Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts based on originality, methodology, relevance, and clarity while adhering to the journal’s standards. These guidelines ensure that reviews are constructive, unbiased, and completed promptly, contributing to the overall quality and integrity of the publication process.

Invite to Review

When invited to review for our journal, you are selected based on your expertise and experience in the relevant field. The invitation to review is an opportunity to contribute to the advancement of knowledge and maintain the quality of scholarly publishing. If you accept the invitation, you will receive a detailed brief outlining the manuscript’s scope, the review criteria form, and the expected timeline. Your evaluation should be objective and constructive, providing insightful feedback that will help authors improve their work. We appreciate your commitment to this crucial role and the time you invest in the review process.

Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could be perceived as bias toward or against the manuscript or its authors. This includes situations where the reviewer works at the same institution as one of the authors, has co-authored, collaborated, or shared joint grants with any of the authors in the past three years, or has any close personal relationships, rivalries, or conflicts with the authors. Additionally, if the reviewer could gain or lose financially from the paper’s publication or has other non-financial conflicts (such as political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, or commercial) with any of the authors, these must be disclosed. If a manuscript has been reviewed previously for another journal, it is not considered a conflict of interest; however, reviewers should inform the Editorial Office about any changes or improvements made since the last review. Reviewers are also encouraged to refer to the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for further guidance.

Double-Blind Confidentiality

In a double-blind review process, maintaining confidentiality is essential to ensure unbiased and fair evaluations. Both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process, which helps to prevent any potential biases or conflicts of interest from influencing the assessment. Reviewers are required to keep all details of the manuscript and the review process strictly confidential. This includes not disclosing the identity of the authors or any specific details of the manuscript to external parties. By upholding these confidentiality standards, we aim to foster an objective review environment and protect the integrity of the scholarly evaluation process.

Preparing a review report

Creating a thorough and effective review report is essential for upholding the quality of scholarly publications. A well-prepared review provides valuable feedback to authors and assists the editorial board in making informed decisions. The following guidelines should be followed to ensure a comprehensive and unbiased evaluation:

Thorough Reading: Read the entire manuscript and any supplementary materials, with a focus on figures, tables, data, and methods.
Comprehensive Analysis: Critically evaluate the manuscript, including specific sections and key concepts.
Detailed Comments: Provide detailed feedback to help authors understand and address the issues raised.
Avoid Biased Citations: Do not recommend citing your work, that of close colleagues, or the journal unless necessary for manuscript improvement. Avoid excessive self-citations or honorary citations intended to boost visibility.
Maintain Professionalism: Use a neutral and respectful tone, focusing on constructive criticism that aids manuscript improvement. Derogatory comments are unacceptable.
Quality Standards: Ensure the report meets the journal’s quality standards; reports failing to meet these may be revised or discarded.

A Review Report Should Contain:

Format: Adhere to the journal’s specific instructions for writing and submitting the review. Utilize any provided formats or scoring rubrics. Ensure that your feedback is objective and constructive, supporting your critique with appropriate evidence and references. Maintain a professional tone, avoiding hostility, inflammatory remarks, or derogatory personal comments. See COPE Case 08-13 for guidance on avoiding personal remarks.
Appropriate Feedback: Provide a fair, honest, and unbiased evaluation of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. Most journals allow for confidential comments to the editor and comments visible to the authors. Ensure that your recommendations (accept, revise, reject) align with your comments. Indicate which aspects of the manuscript were reviewed if not the entire document and ensure that feedback to the editor is consistent with comments from the authors.
Language and Style: Respect that it is the authors’ paper and avoid rewriting it to fit your style. Suggest changes that improve clarity while being mindful of language sensitivities, especially for non-native English speakers. Phrase your feedback respectfully.
Suggestions for Further Work: Focus on commenting on the quality and rigor of the submitted work. If additional analyses are needed, specify what is necessary to clarify the manuscript. Do not extend the work beyond its current scope but suggest essential investigations to support the claims made.
Accountability: Prepare the review report independently unless permitted by the journal to involve another person. Avoid unjustified negative comments about competitors’ work. Refrain from recommending citations to boost visibility or citation counts. Do not delay the review process by requesting unnecessary additional information. If you are an editor reviewing a manuscript yourself, do so transparently rather than under the guise of an anonymous reviewer.

Prohibition of AI in Review Report Preparation

Reviewers are strictly prohibited from using artificial intelligence (AI) to prepare their review reports. The use of AI in this context is considered unethical as it compromises the integrity and originality of the peer review process. Reviewers are expected to provide their own insights, feedback, and expert opinions based on their thorough understanding of the manuscript. The authenticity of the review process relies heavily on the individual expertise and judgment of the reviewer, and any deviation from this principle undermines the trust and quality of academic publishing. Examples of AI tools that should not be used include ChatGPT, OpenAI’s GPT-4, Google’s Bard, Microsoft’s Copilot, Grammarly (in advanced modes), Jasper AI, Copy.ai, Writesonic, and any AI-powered summarization tools.

For additional guidance, please refer to:

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf
Robert J. DiDomenico, William L. Baker, Stuart T. Haines, Improving peer review: What reviewers can do, American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, Volume 74, Issue 24, 15 December 2017, Pages 2080–2084, https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp170190

Evaluating the Manuscript

When reviewing a manuscript, it is essential to evaluate various aspects to ensure the paper meets the high standards expected by the journal. Your rating will help the editors make informed decisions and provide constructive feedback to the authors. Below are the key criteria to consider when evaluating a manuscript:

1. Scope and Relevance:

Fit Within Journal’s Scope: Does the manuscript fit within the journal’s scope and address topics of current interest and relevance to the field?

2. Originality and Novelty:

Innovative Approaches: Evaluate the originality of the research. Does the manuscript present new findings or innovative approaches that advance the field?

3. Abstract:

Completeness and Accuracy: Does the abstract provide a complete, accurate, and concise summary of the content of the article, including the study’s main findings and conclusions?

4. Introduction:

Clarity of Study Aims: Are the study’s aims clearly stated and logically presented?
Rationale and Justification: Is the rationale for conducting the study well-justified and clearly explained?
Literature Review: How effectively do the authors position their work within the existing literature? Does the paper demonstrate a clear understanding of gaps in current knowledge, and how does it address these gaps?
Significance and Impact: Determine the significance of the findings. Will the research have a substantial impact on the field or related areas of study?

5. Materials and Methods:

Detail and Reproducibility: Are the methods described in sufficient detail for replication? Are the descriptions clear and precise?
Robustness of Study Design: Is the study design appropriate and robust enough to achieve the stated aims?
Scientific Rigor: Consider the robustness of the experimental design, methodology, and statistical analysis. Are the methods appropriate and well-executed?
Research Design and Methodology:
- Is the study design adequately described, addressing potential sources of bias?
- Are the statistical methods appropriately applied and reported (including p-values, confidence intervals, and effect sizes)?
- Does the study adhere to ethical standards, including the treatment of human or animal subjects? Are conflicts of interest transparently disclosed?

6. Results and Discussion:

Quality of Data and Results: Review the quality and reliability of the data presented. Are the results clearly described, well-organized, and supported by the data?
Critical Discussion: Is the discussion section thorough, critical, and does it provide a comprehensive interpretation of the results?
Consistency and Alignment: Are the results consistent across experiments or analyses, and do they align with the study’s objectives?
Significance and Practical Applications: Evaluate whether the discussion offers insightful interpretations and implications for future research. Are there clear practical applications or recommendations for practitioners or policymakers?

7. Conclusion:

Summary of Findings: Does the conclusion effectively summarize the study’s main findings?
Implications: Are the implications and contributions of the study clearly articulated?
Future Directions: Does the paper provide suggestions for future research based on the study’s findings?
Support for Conclusions: Are the conclusions supported by the data, and do they avoid unwarranted generalizations?

8. Figures and Tables:

Quality and Clarity: Assess the quality and clarity of the figures and tables. Are they appropriately used to enhance understanding of the research? Are they well-organized and easy to interpret?

9. References:

Accuracy and Consistency: Are the citations accurate, and are all cited references listed in the bibliography? Is there consistency between in-text citations and the reference list?
Appropriateness of Sources: Are the selected references relevant and appropriate to support the study’s background, methods, and discussion?
Currency of Sources: Does the reference list include recent and up-to-date sources, particularly in rapidly evolving fields?
Literature Review and References: Has the author acknowledged prior work appropriately, and does the paper engage with a diverse range of literature reflecting a comprehensive understanding of the field?

10. Quality of Writing and Presentation:

Clarity and Coherence: Is the writing clear, coherent, and logically structured from the introduction to the conclusion?
English Language and Clarity: Evaluate the quality of the writing. Is the manuscript well-written and free of grammatical errors?

11. Ethical Considerations:

Adherence to Ethical Guidelines: Ensure that the research adheres to ethical guidelines. Are there any ethical concerns regarding the study design, data collection, or potential conflicts of interest?

12. Additional Comments:

Include any additional observations or comments that might aid in the overall evaluation of the manuscript.

13. Rating the manuscript (1 to 5): Reviewers should rate the article on a scale from 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) based on Originality, Depth of Research, and Technical Quality.

By carefully considering these criteria, you will provide a comprehensive and balanced evaluation of the manuscript, helping to maintain the journal’s high standards of publication.

Review Recommendation

In your review report, it is crucial to provide a clear recommendation regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication. Your recommendation should reflect your assessment of the manuscript’s quality, significance, and adherence to the journal’s standards. Below are the four possible review conditions you may choose from:

Accept Unconditionally: The manuscript is of high quality, with no significant revisions required. It meets all the journal’s standards and can be published as it is.
Accept Conditionally Subject to Minor Revision: The manuscript is generally strong but requires some minor revisions before it can be accepted for publication. These revisions may include correcting minor errors, clarifying certain points, or making slight improvements to the presentation. The authors should address these minor issues to meet the journal’s standards fully.
Reject in Current Form but Allow Resubmission After Major Revision: The manuscript has potential but requires significant revisions before it can be considered for publication. The authors need to make substantial improvements based on the accompanying comments, including addressing methodological flaws, improving data presentation, or enhancing the overall clarity and coherence of the paper. Once these major revisions are made, the manuscript may be resubmitted for another round of review.
Reject Unconditionally: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards and is not suitable for publication. The issues may be too fundamental or extensive to be addressed through revision. In this case, the manuscript should be rejected without the option for resubmission.

By providing one of these recommendations, you will help guide the editorial decision-making process and ensure the publication of high-quality research.

Reviewer Information

At the end of the review process, reviewers are required to complete the Reviewer Information section in the review report. This section must include the following mandatory details: Reviewer Name, Designation, Address, Date, Research Interest, Publons ID, ORCID ID, and Signature. Providing this information ensures transparency and recognition of the reviewers’ contributions.

Educational Resources

Enhance your peer review skills with these free, online courses:

Reviewers are also recommended to read the relevant descriptions in theEthical Guidelines For Peer Reviewers by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Web of Science Academy (formerly Publons Academy): Comprehensive training on peer review.
Register your ORCID: Reviewers can create their ORCID profile and add their reviews to their ORCID record. This helps in showcasing their review contributions and maintaining a verified record of their peer review activities.

Become a Peer Reviewer

Interested in becoming a peer reviewer for the Current Research in Nutrition and Food Science Journal? Visit our Become a Peer Reviewer page for more information and to sign up.

For any questions or concerns, please contact the editorial office at info@foodandnutritionjournal.org

FAQs

Q: How detailed should my review comments be?
A: Your comments should be as detailed as necessary to provide constructive feedback. Include specific suggestions for improvement, referencing sections, figures, or tables as needed.

Q: What if I discover a conflict of interest after accepting the review?
A: Notify the editor immediately so an alternative reviewer can be assigned.

Q: Can I share the manuscript with a colleague for their opinion?
A: No, maintaining confidentiality is crucial. Do not share the manuscript with anyone.

Q: What should I do if I suspect plagiarism or other ethical issues in the manuscript?
A: If you suspect plagiarism or any other ethical issues, report your concerns to the editorial office immediately. Provide as much detail as possible to help the editors investigate the issue.

Q: How do I handle a manuscript that falls outside my area of expertise?
A: If you feel the manuscript is outside your expertise, inform the editorial office as soon as possible. They can either assign it to another reviewer or seek additional expert opinions.

Q: Is it appropriate to suggest additional experiments or studies?
A: Yes, if you believe that additional experiments or studies are necessary to support the manuscript’s conclusions, suggest them in your review. Be specific about what is needed and why.

Q: How should I address language and formatting issues?
A: While it’s not the primary focus, you should note any significant language and formatting issues. Provide examples and suggest improvements. The editorial office may request language editing services if needed.

Q: What should I do if the authors haven’t adequately addressed my previous comments in a revised submission?
A: Clearly outline in your review which comments you feel have not been addressed adequately. Provide specific examples and suggest how the authors can fully meet your concerns.

Q: How long should I take to complete a review?
A: Typically, you should aim to complete your review within 1-2 weeks. If you need more time, communicate with the editorial office to request an extension.

Q: What should I do if I am unable to complete the review after accepting the invitation?
A: Notify the editorial office as soon as possible. If you can, suggest alternative reviewers who have the appropriate expertise.

Q: What happens after I submit my review?
A: After you submit your review, the editorial team will consider your comments along with those from other reviewers. You will be informed of the editorial decision once it has been made.

Q: Can I ask for recognition of my review work?
A: Yes, our journal provides certificates or acknowledgments for reviewers. Additionally, you can add your review activities to your ORCID profile for recognition. You can also register your reviews on Web of Science (formerly Publons), which allows you to track and showcase your review work. The journal can verify your reviews to help enhance your profile. For more information, visit Web of Science.

Q: How do I provide a balanced review?
A: Ensure that you highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Provide constructive criticism aimed at improving the work rather than solely focusing on flaws.

Q: What if I disagree with the other reviewers’ opinions?
A: Each reviewer provides their independent assessment. It is normal for opinions to differ. Focus on providing your well-justified and evidence-based evaluation. The editor will consider all reviews and make a balanced decision.

Q: Can reviewers suggest their citations for inclusion in the manuscript?
A: No, it is considered unethical for reviewers to suggest their citations for inclusion in a manuscript. Such practices can introduce bias and undermine the integrity of the review process. Reviewers should focus on providing objective feedback and recommendations based on the quality and relevance of the manuscript, rather than promoting their work.