Penelitian Gizi dan Makanan (The Journal of Nutrition and Food Research) is committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, fairness, and transparency of scholarly publishing through a rigorous and independent peer-review process. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are subject to editorial assessment and, when considered suitable, external peer review.

The journal applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are initially screened by the editorial team to determine their suitability for the journal.

The initial assessment considers:

• Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

• Originality and potential contribution to the field of nutrition and food research.

• Scientific quality and methodological appropriateness.

• Completeness and clarity of the manuscript.

• Compliance with the journal's author guidelines and submission requirements.

• Compliance with relevant research ethics, authorship, competing-interest, and publication ethics policies.

• Potential concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other forms of publication misconduct.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential submission requirements, or present substantial concerns regarding scientific quality or publication ethics may be rejected at the initial screening stage without external peer review.

The editorial team may request preliminary corrections or additional information before determining whether a manuscript should proceed to peer review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally sent to at least two independent peer reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant subject area.

Under the double-blind review model, authors' identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewers' identities are concealed from authors. The editorial team takes reasonable steps to remove identifying information from manuscripts and review materials before they are shared with reviewers.

Authors are responsible for preparing manuscripts in a manner that supports anonymous review, including removing identifying information from the manuscript file and supplementary materials where appropriate.

Although the journal takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly when research content, citations, or publicly available information may reveal the identities of the authors.

3. Selection and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on their relevant expertise, research experience, and ability to provide an independent and constructive assessment of the manuscript.

The editorial team will consider potential competing interests before assigning reviewers. Individuals with relationships or interests that could compromise their impartiality should not be assigned to review the manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, provide clear and evidence-based comments, maintain confidentiality, and disclose any competing interests that may affect their assessment.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, academic, professional, or financial advantage. They must not share confidential manuscript materials with unauthorized persons.

Any use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools in peer review must comply with the journal's applicable policies and must not compromise manuscript confidentiality, research integrity, or the reviewer's independent judgment.

4. Review Criteria

Peer reviewers are asked to assess the scientific quality and suitability of a manuscript, including, where relevant:

• Originality and significance of the research.

• Relevance to nutrition, food research, and the journal's scope.

• Clarity of research objectives and research questions.

• Appropriateness of the study design and methodology.

• Adequacy of data collection, statistical analysis, and interpretation.

• Consistency between the results, discussion, and conclusions.

• Quality and relevance of the literature review and references.

• Compliance with applicable research ethics requirements.

• Clarity of presentation, organization, and scientific writing.

• Limitations of the study and the validity of its claims.

Reviewers should provide constructive comments that help the authors improve their manuscripts. Criticism must be scientifically justified, professional, and relevant to the work.

5. Similarity Screening and Research Integrity

The journal conducts similarity screening in accordance with its Plagiarism Screening Policy.

Similarity-detection software may be used to identify textual overlap with existing publications and other available sources. The editorial team evaluates the resulting reports and determines whether further investigation is necessary.

Similarity scores are not, by themselves, conclusive evidence of plagiarism. Editorial assessment considers the sources, context, extent of overlap, attribution, and other relevant circumstances.

Concerns involving plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, image manipulation, authorship disputes, undisclosed competing interests, or other suspected research and publication misconduct will be handled under the journal's applicable publication ethics policies.

6. Editorial Decisions

After considering the reviewers' reports and the editorial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor makes the editorial decision.

Possible decisions include:

• Accept: the manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision, subject to any remaining production requirements.

• Minor Revision: the manuscript requires limited changes before a final decision can be made.

• Major Revision: substantial changes, additional analysis, clarification, or other improvements are required before further consideration.

• Reject: the manuscript is not accepted for publication.

These categories describe the journal's available decision options. A revision decision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but are not binding. The Editor-in-Chief retains final authority over acceptance or rejection, with input from the editorial board or designated editors where appropriate.

The journal may seek additional reviews or further expert advice when reviewer reports are conflicting, insufficient, or raise issues requiring specialized expertise.

7. Revision and Re-Review

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a response to the reviewers' and editor's comments.

The response should address each substantive comment individually and explain the changes made. Where an author disagrees with a comment, the response should provide a clear scientific justification.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to other qualified reviewers when necessary. The editor will assess whether the revisions adequately address the concerns before making a further decision.

The journal may reject a manuscript if the requested revisions are not adequately addressed or if significant concerns regarding scientific quality, research integrity, or suitability remain unresolved.

8. Confidentiality and Competing Interests

Manuscripts under review, reviewer identities, review reports, and editorial correspondence are treated as confidential and are accessible only to authorized individuals involved in the editorial process.

Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must disclose relevant competing interests and must not participate in decisions where their impartiality could reasonably be compromised.

If a competing interest becomes apparent after a review assignment or editorial decision has begun, the individual concerned must inform the editorial team promptly. The journal will determine whether reassignment or other measures are necessary.

Submissions authored by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, or Editorial Board members must be managed independently by an editor who has no relevant competing interest. The author-editor must not participate in the review or editorial decision concerning their own manuscript.

9. Rejection and Appeals

Authors whose manuscripts are rejected may submit an appeal in accordance with the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

Appeals should provide specific grounds, such as a significant factual error in the assessment, a material misunderstanding of the manuscript, a relevant procedural irregularity, or evidence of an undisclosed competing interest.

Disagreement with an editorial decision alone does not guarantee reconsideration. Appeals will be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or another authorized editor without a relevant competing interest. Where appropriate, an independent expert may be consulted.

The journal's decision following an appeal will be communicated to the corresponding author.

10. Publication After Acceptance

Manuscripts accepted for publication may undergo copyediting, language editing, typesetting, reference verification, metadata preparation, and author proof correction, as applicable.

Authors may be asked to review proofs and correct production errors before publication. Substantive changes after acceptance may require further editorial approval.

The final article will be published online in accordance with the journal's publication schedule and production procedures. Published articles will be assigned a DOI where applicable and made available under the journal's stated copyright and licensing policy.

11. Review Transparency and Policy Compliance

The journal is committed to conducting peer review fairly, consistently, and independently. Editorial decisions will be based on the manuscript's scientific merit, relevance, research integrity, and compliance with the journal's policies.

The journal will periodically review its peer-review procedures to maintain consistency with relevant publication ethics guidance, including the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

This policy should be read together with the journal's Instructions for Authors, Plagiarism Screening Policy, Conflict of Interest Policy, Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy, and Complaints and Appeals Policy.