Peer Review Process
Double-Blind
Review model
2 Reviewers
Per manuscript, per round
2+ Rounds
Evaluation cycles
EIC Decision
Final editorial call
Overview
Every manuscript submitted to the Journal of Nutrition and Food Health Sciences (JNFH) passes through a structured peer review pathway that verifies scientific soundness, methodological accuracy, and practical relevance to nutrition, food science, and public health. The process is designed to be fair, timely, and constructive — giving authors clear, actionable feedback while protecting the scholarly quality of every published article.
Review Model
JNFH applies a double-blind review model, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are mutually concealed throughout the evaluation. This design reduces bias and keeps the assessment centered on scientific merit rather than reputation or affiliation.
✓ Author anonymity
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts without knowing the authors' identity.
✓ Reviewer anonymity
Authors never learn who evaluated their submission.
✓ Editor-mediated
All communication is routed through the handling editor.
Evaluation Criteria
1
Methodological Soundness
Reviewers verify that the research design, sampling, and analytical methods (statistical, laboratory, or clinical) are appropriate and correctly executed for the nutrition or food health question addressed.
2
Public Health Relevance
Assessment of how the findings advance nutritional science, food safety practice, or evidence-based dietary and public health interventions.
3
Originality & Novelty
Confirmation that the manuscript offers new data, an innovative approach, or a fresh perspective rather than duplicating previously published work.
4
Clarity of Presentation
Evaluation of structure, language quality, figures/tables, and logical flow so the manuscript is accessible to researchers and practitioners alike.
5
Ethical Compliance
Verification of institutional/ethics committee approval, informed consent, and proper handling of human or animal subject data where applicable.
Review Workflow
1
Editorial Screening
The Section Editor checks scope alignment, formatting, and plagiarism screening before the manuscript is assigned to reviewers.
2
First-Round Double-Blind Review
Two reviewers with relevant expertise independently assess the manuscript against the five evaluation criteria and submit structured recommendations.
3
Author Revision & Response Letter
Authors revise the manuscript and submit a point-by-point response letter addressing every reviewer comment.
4
Second-Round Verification Review
The same or newly assigned reviewers verify that the revisions adequately address prior concerns before recommending a decision.
5
Editor-in-Chief Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief weighs the reviewers' recommendations and the authors' revisions to issue a final decision: accept, minor/major revision, or reject. Authors are notified with a clear rationale.
After Acceptance: Publication Steps
Copyediting
Language and consistency polishing by the JNFH editorial team.
Typesetting
Manuscript is laid out according to the JNFH publication template.
Author Proofing
Authors review and approve galley proofs before publication.
Open-Access Publication
The article is released in the assigned issue via the JNFH OJS platform.
Confidentiality & Research Ethics
Reviewer Confidentiality
Reviewers must not discuss a manuscript under evaluation with third parties without the handling editor's explicit approval.
Manuscript Privilege
Unpublished manuscripts are treated as privileged information and must not be shared or discussed with unauthorized individuals.
Closed Review Records
JNFH currently does not publish review reports alongside articles; the review dialogue stays private among authors, reviewers, and editors.
Single Channel of Communication
All exchanges between authors and reviewers are routed exclusively through the assigned editor to preserve anonymity.
Committed to Rigorous, Fair Review
Journal of Nutrition and Food Health Sciences (JNFH)
