Guidelines for Reviewers

The Journal of Research and Innovation in Food Science and Technology’s (JRIFST) the Guidelines for Reviewers


General Guidance

The primary purpose of peer review is to provide the editor with the information needed to make a fair, evidence-based decision that meets the journal's editorial criteria. Review reports are also intended to help authors revise their work so that it can be accepted for publication. Reports recommending that the paper be rejected should explain the main weaknesses of the research helping authors prepare their manuscript for submission to another journal. Peer reviewers should adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer reviewers.


Invitation to review

The invitation to review will be emailed to you. In your invitation you will be informed of the title as well as the abstract of the manuscript and, if applicable, an abstract of the study. JRIFST uses a double -blind review where the authors are unaware of the identity of the reviewers. Therefore, please do not provide any information in your review that could identify you or your institution.


The Board of Reviewers

Consists of experienced researchers whose primary role is to provide regular and active support to journals by providing high-quality, rigorous, and transparent peer review reports for submitted manuscripts in their field. The term is regularly 1 year and can then be extended or terminated. Membership includes the same responsibilities and benefits as regular reviewers; also, the members must review at least 6 manuscripts per year. If the assigned reviewers are unable to provide a report upon the invitation, they are expected to propose alternative potential reviewers (proposed candidates must meet the reviewers’ requirements mentioned in ….). The members are entitled to publish one paper per year at a discount of, also the members are entitled to receive certificate for their cooperation with the journal.

  • Active members may be promoted to the advisory editorial board of the journal meeting the conditions set by the Editor-in-Chief.


Volunteer Reviewers

JRIFST is actively seeking volunteers to review manuscripts. Members of review board and volunteer reviewers can actively offer to review manuscripts for one or more manuscripts. To become part of this program you must meet the criteria outlined in .To become a member of this program, please apply here: Your application will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief assessing whether your background fits the scope of the journal, as well as any potential ethical issues.


General Guidelines for Reviewers

Invitation to Review

Manuscripts submitted to JRIFST are reviewed by at least two peer reviewers, who may be volunteer reviewers, review panel members, or reviewers proposed by other reviewers during the pre-review. The reviewers are asked to rate the quality of the manuscript and to make a recommendation to the editor-in-chief as to whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised or rejected. The reviewers can also suggest other reviewers if an invitation has to be declined; request an extension of the deadline as soon as possible if more time is needed to produce a comprehensive report and comments.


Before Reviewing

Please note the following:

Is the manuscript you are asking for review consistent with your expertise? If you receive a manuscript that deals with a topic that does not fit well in your field, please let the editor know as soon as possible. Other reviewers do not hesitate to recommend.

Do you have time to review your paper? Is the review completed within three weeks. If you feel that you will not be able to complete the review within this period, please let the publisher know. Please suggest another reviewer if possible. If you agree to have your manuscript reviewed but cannot complete it by the deadline, please contact the editor as soon as possible.

Are there potential conflicts of interest? Conflicts of interest will not prevent a manuscript from being reviewed, but it is important to disclose any conflicts of interest to the editor before review. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, please feel free to contact the editor.


Potential Conflicts of Interest

We ask reviewers to declare any potential conflicts of interest and email the journal Editorial Office if they are unsure if something constitutes a potential conflict of interest. Possible conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to):

  • Reviewer works in the same institute as one of the authors;
  • Reviewer is a co-author, collaborator, joint grant holder, or has any other academic link, with any of the authors within the past three years;
  • Reviewer has a close personal relationship, rivalry or antipathy to any of the authors;
  • Reviewer may in any way gain or lose financially from publication of the paper;
  • Reviewer has any other non-financial conflicts of interest (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial or any other) with any of the authors.

Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest that may be perceived as bias for or against the paper or authors.

Please kindly note that if reviewers are asked to assess a manuscript they previously reviewed for another journal, this is not considered to be a conflict of interest. In this case, reviewers should feel free to let the editor-in-chief know if the manuscript has been improved or not compared to the previous version.

Peer reviewers are also encouraged to read the relevant statements in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (


Content Quality and Originality

Is the manuscript novel and interesting enough to justify its publication? Does it contribute to the norms of knowledge? Does the manuscript meet the journal's standards? Is the research question important? It may be helpful to look at a study in terms of percentiles to determine its originality and suitability for a journal. Are you in the top 25% of jobs in this area? I recommend using a tool like Scopus to do a quick literature search to see if there are any reviews in this area. If the study has already been covered, please provide the editor with a reference to that study.


Organization and Clarity

  • Title: Does the manuscript explain the item clearly?
  • Summary: Does it reflect the content of the manuscript?
  • Introduction: Does the author describe exactly what he hoped to achieve and clearly state the problem to be investigated? Any author's findings should explain what they are. Experiments, hypotheses, and general experimental designs or methods should be described.
  • Methodology: Did the author describe exactly how the data were collected? Is the design appropriate to answer the question? Is there enough information to replicate the study? Does the manuscript identify the steps followed? Are these arranged wisely? If the method is new, is it detailed? Was the sampling appropriate? Are the devices and materials adequately described? Does the manuscript clarify the type of data recorded? Did the author describe the measurements accurately?
  • Result: That is Confidential comments to the editor are welcome, but should not contradict the main points of the report to the author.

Reviewers should only use the journal's publication criteria to evaluate the manuscript.

  • The following conventions should be respected:
  • Reviewers should check the journal's peer review policy before disclosing their role.
  • Reviews should be objective.
  • Personal criticism of the author is just as inappropriate as defamatory/slanderous remarks.
  • Reviewers should articulate their views with supporting arguments and references.
  • Evaluators should indicate potentially competing interests.
  • Reviewers should refuse to review manuscripts for which they believe there are competing interests arising from competition, cooperation, or other relationships or ties with the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscript.
  • Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of published material and should not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use that information in their own research.
  • Reviewers wishing to forward a review request to a colleague must first contact the journal.

Concerns regarding these items or any aspect of the review process should be reported to the editor-in-chief.

To assess various aspects of the manuscript, reviewers are asked questions such as:

  • Validity: Does the manuscript have any deficiencies that would prevent it from being published? If yes, please provide details.
  • Originality and Relevance: If your conclusion is not original, please provide relevant references.
  • Data and Methodology: Please comment on effectiveness of approach, quality of data and quality of presentation. Note that auditors must verify all data, including extended data and supplemental information. Are data and methodological reporting sufficiently detailed and transparent to allow reproducibility of results?
  • Appropriate use of statistics and handling of uncertainties: All error bars are defined in appropriate figure legends. Please comment if this is not the case. The report should include specific comments on the validity of the statistical tests and the accuracy of the description of the error bars and probability values.
  • Conclusion: Do you find the conclusions and interpretation of the data sound, valid, and credible?
  • Suggestions for Improvement: Please provide suggestions that could help enhance the revision.
  • References: Does this manuscript appropriately reference previous publications? If not, what references should be included or excluded? Attempts by reviewers to coerce citations are recorded with their entries in the database.
  • Clarity and Context: Is the abstract clear and accessible? Are the abstracts, introductions and conclusions adequate?
  • Identify specific parts of the manuscript, data, or analysis that you felt were outside your expertise or that you did not fully appreciate.
  • Please answer any other specific questions from the editors.
  • Make sure authors follow gender and sex in studies (SAGER guidelines).
  • Reviewers must notify the Editor-in-Chief/Springer Nature (the respective journal's contact) of any allegations of journalistic or scientific misconduct. plagiarism or image manipulation, about.

Before you submit your paper, take a moment to read it and put yourself in the author's shoes. How do you feel when you receive this report? Does the tone make you angry? Polite and professional? Are there any unnecessary personal or hostile remarks about authors or competitors? Publisher reserves the right to remove inappropriate language from its reports.

Reports do not necessarily need to follow this specific order but should document the peer reviewer’s thought process. Some journals have a set of questions that reviewers will need to specifically address. All statements should be justified and argued in detail, naming facts and citing supporting references, commenting on all aspects that are relevant to the manuscript and that the reviewers feel qualified commenting on. Not all of the above aspects will necessarily apply to every paper, due to discipline-specific standards. When in doubt about discipline-specific peer reviewing standards, reviewers can contact the Editor for guidance.


The review report should include:

  • A brief executive summary (one short paragraph) outlining the purpose, main contributions and strengths of the paper.
  • General concept comments manuscripts: highlighting weaknesses, testability of hypotheses, methodological imprecision, lack of control, etc. These statements focus on the academic content of the manuscript and should be specific enough to allow authors to respond.
  • Line numbers, specific comments about tables or figures. Point out any inaccuracies or ambiguous sentences in the text. These comments should focus on academic content, not spelling, formatting, or English issues. These issues may be fixed by internal staff at a later date.


Guidelines for Reviewers for Depositing Review Activities into ORCID

JRIFST allows reviewers to register reviewer activities in their ORCID ID if the reviewer's ORCID account is linked to the journal’s submission system. To do this, the reviewers must register their account and link their ORCID here. Once accounts are linked, reviewers can manually enter their rating here. These records should then show on the reviewer’s ORCID profile

Reviewers may create a profile on Publons and have their reviewing activity automatically added for participating journals. Profiles on Publons can also be integrated with ORCID. ( ( ( Having received Acknowledge of Review you are kindly required to send it to   mailto:


Confidentiality Statement

The journal is double-blind peer reviewed. Reviewers must keep the content of the manuscript, including the abstract, confidential until the paper is published. Reviewers should also be careful not to reveal their identity to authors in comments or in the metadata of reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format. Reviewers should notify the editor if they would like a colleague to complete the review on their behalf (reviewers must always meet the criteria already set out).

  • In all other cases, evaluation reports are considered confidential and will only be passed on with the express consent of the evaluator.


Preparing for Review

Review Schedule for JRIFST expects reviewers to complete their feedback within three weeks. The majority of accepted papers go through all three of the following review phases:


Feedback prepared for authors Decision speed author Type of Review
Reason(s) for rejecting or confirming that the manuscript will be forwarded for review
fewer than 10 days
Internal editorial review
Review Comments in Detail Approximately 3 weeks (may be longer if undergoing Editorial Office statistical review) External peer review
Review Comments in Detail 10 days Final review


Data Notes

A peer reviewed report should provide the editorial board members with the information they need to make a decision and provide authors with guidance on how to strengthen their work so that it is acceptable for publication. Reviewers are welcome to request additional datasets or information as needed to support the data. However, reviewers should avoid soliciting extensive follow-up experiments or confirmation of specific hypotheses or interpretations that are beyond the scope of a data note manuscript. Indeed, reviewers should encourage authors to remove in-depth analysis or new scientific conclusions from submitted data notes. The evaluation of a data note should not be based on the perceived impact or novelty of the results associated with the datasets. The peer review process should continue to focus on data quality and reusability, not specific interpretations. When preparing a report, we ask reviewers to consider and comment on the following questions:

  • Has the data been produced in a rigorous and methodologically sound manner?
  • Has the technical quality of the data been checked, where necessary, by technical validation experiments and statistical analysis of the data quality or errors convincingly supported?
  • Is the depth, coverage, scope and/or completeness of this data sufficient for the types of applications or research questions outlined by the authors?
  • Are the methods and any data processing steps described in sufficient detail to enable others to reproduce these steps?
  • Have the authors provided all information necessary for others to reuse this data set or integrate it with other data?
  • Is this Data note combined with all repository metadata, in line with relevant minimum information or reporting standards? Have you looked at the actual data files, do they appear complete and match the descriptions in the data note?
  • Have these data files been placed in the most appropriate data archive available?

When reviewing papers at the stage, we ask reviewers to assess:

  1. The importance of the research question(s).
  2. The logic, justification and plausibility of the proposed hypotheses.
  3. 3. Soundness and feasibility of methodology and analysis pipeline (including statistical power analysis where appropriate).
  4. Whether the clarity and level of methodological detail are sufficient to accurately replicate the proposed experimental procedures and analysis pipeline.
  5. Whether the authors have pre-specified sufficient unbiased tests to ensure that.

After phase 1 peer review, manuscripts are accepted, offered the opportunity for revision or rejected outright. Manuscripts that pass the peer review receive an acceptance in principle, indicating that pending the successful completion of the study, the manuscript will be published in accordance with the pre-registered methods and analytical procedures and a justifiable and evidence-based interpretation of the results. Authors are asked to complete their study within 12 months.


Phase 2:

Complete Submission and review of the manuscript upon completion of the study, the authors complete the manuscript, including the Results and Discussion sections. The manuscript is then returned to the reviewers, who are asked to rate:

  • Whether the data are capable of testing the hypotheses proposed by the authors by meeting the approved outcome-neutral conditions (such as quality controls, positive controls).
  • Whether the introduction, rationale, and hypotheses presented are identical to the approved Phase 1 submission (required).
  • Whether the authors strictly followed the registered experimental procedures.
  • Whether unregistered post hoc analyzes added by the authors are needed, methodologically sound, and meaningful.
  • Whether the authors' conclusions are justified given the data.

Concluding comments all submissions are confidential and please do not discuss any aspect of the submissions with any third party. If you wish to discuss the manuscript with a colleague, please ask the editor first. Please do not contact the author directly.

  • Ethical issues
  • Plagiarism: If you suspect a manuscript is a substantial copy of another work, inform the editor-in-chief about the issue with the details and evidence through the system of the journal. Scam: It is It is very difficult to spot the determined scammer, but if you suspect the findings in a manuscript are not true, discuss this with the editor- further ethical


Reviewer's recommendations

Reviewer's recommendations guide editors' decisions, but please note that editors do not always agree with the reviewers' conclusions. Also, it is common for manuscripts to receive mixed reviews.


Recommendation for rejection may be appropriate when a manuscript adds nothing to the existing literature, when there are serious flaws in the methodology, or when it is unsuitable for the journal's audience. Reject Recommendation
A recommendation for major revisions may be appropriate when a manuscript brings value to the subject but requires extensive work before it is worth publishing. Major Revisions Recommendation
A recommendation for minor revisions may be appropriate when the paper is well-written and contains new insights, but contains areas that need clarification or other minor revisions. Minor Revisions Recommendation
Shortening a report may be appropriate when a paper makes a valuable contribution. Shorten to Brief Report Recommendation
A recommendation for acceptance may be appropriate if the only necessary changes can be made in editing. Please note that it is very unusual for a paper to be accepted in the first submitted draft. Please use the reviewer's checklist to determine if there are any issues you may have overlooked before recommending acceptance of a manuscript that has not yet been revised. Accept Recommendation

In cases where editors require authors to revise and resubmit their manuscript, the revised submission is generally returned to some or all of the original peer reviewers for re-review. About half of all papers that undergo peer review need to be re-peer reviewed. Reviewers are asked to rate authors' responses to previous recommendations, as well as changes in manuscript content that reflect those changes. Further rounds of review may be necessary if the reviewers disagree or if the manuscript is very technical



Overall recommendation

Please make an overall recommendation for the further processing of the manuscript as follows:

Acceptance: the work can be accepted without further changes.

Acceptance after minor revisions: the work can in principle be accepted after revision based on the reviewers' comments.

Authors are given 7 days for minor revisions.

Reconsideration after major revisions: acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author must provide a point-by-point answer or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer's comments cannot be revised. There are usually a maximum of two rounds of revisions per manuscript. Authors are asked to resubmit the revised work within two weeks, and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comment. If the required revision time is expected to be longer than 2 months, we recommend authors to withdraw their manuscript prior to resubmission to avoid unnecessary time pressure and to ensure that all manuscripts are adequately revised.

Reject: the manuscript has serious deficiencies regarding its original contribution, and the paper may be rejected without an offer for resubmission to the journal. Note that your recommendation is only visible to the editors of the journal, not the authors. Decisions about revisions, acceptances or rejection must always be well justified.

Submitting Your Review Before submitting your review to JRIFST please ensure that you have considered the following:

  • Mention any conflicts of interest. Complete the review checklist form and use the space for free text comments to editors and writers.
  • Number your comments; this helps authors answer.
  • Acknowledge the help of others If, after consulting the editors, you have shared the review task with colleagues or students, please acknowledge their help in your review.
  • Make sure your review covers the positive findings of the research, identifies limitations, suggests areas for revision, and assesses potential contribution to the area.
  • Submit your review in good time. If you need more time, please contact the Editorial Office at so that we are aware of the need for a deadline extension and can notify the authors of any delays if necessary. Next steps:
  • Please fill out the reviewer's comment form by the deadline for submission to the receiving editor.
  • Your recommendation of a manuscript will be considered constructive when the editors make the final decision, and your thorough, honest feedback is greatly appreciated. When posting comments, please include the comment section reserved for editors only and the comment section returnable to the authors). Please do not hesitate to contact the receiving editors with any questions or concerns.