To uphold the highest standards of scholarly integrity and scientific rigor, the journal implements a double-blind peer review process. This system is designed to reduce bias and support fair assessment by ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain strictly anonymous to each other throughout the entire evaluation process.
Reviewer Selection Mechanism
The assigned Editor or Editor-in-Chief carefully selects normally at least two reviewers from the journal's reviewer database and external expert networks. Selection prioritizes international researchers with demonstrated expertise in the manuscript's specific topic and scope. Reviewer selection prioritizes international experts with demonstrated research experience and a strong publication record in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Bibliometric indicators may be considered as one of several reference factors, but editorial judgment remains paramount, and reviewers' research background aligns closely with the submitted work. Before accepting an invitation, all reviewers must complete a conflict-of-interest declaration to confirm no personal, financial, or professional connections that could compromise impartiality.
Manuscript Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are guided to assess submissions holistically, focusing on the following key aspects to determine suitability for publication:
Article Structure: Clear and logical organization, with well-defined sections adhering to standard scientific formatting.
Clarity of Purpose and Objectives: The research question, aims, and hypotheses/objectives are explicitly stated and justified early in the manuscript.
Logical Flow and Transitions: Smooth progression of ideas between sections and paragraphs, with effective use of transitions to guide the reader.
Focused Introduction and Conclusion: The introduction effectively sets the context, highlights the research gap, and states the significance; the conclusion summarizes key findings, implications, and future directions without introducing new data.
Depth of Coverage for Main Ideas/Themes: Core concepts, results, and interpretations receive adequate attention, explanation, and critical analysis rather than superficial treatment.
Strength and Persuasiveness of Supporting Materials: Data, evidence, figures, tables, and arguments are robust, relevant, and convincingly support the conclusions drawn.
Comprehensiveness of Literature Review and Referencing: Sufficient, up-to-date, and relevant citations from high-quality sources to contextualize the work and demonstrate awareness of the field.
Suitability for the Journal's Readership: The topic, level of technical detail, and presentation style are appropriate for an international audience of food science and agriculture researchers and professionals.
Language, Clarity, and Style: Appropriate, precise, and professional wording; sentences are grammatically correct, concise, and free of ambiguity to ensure readability and scientific accuracy.
Process Overview
Suitable manuscripts are assigned to an editor and sent for independent peer review.
Based on reviewer reports, editorial decisions may include:
•
•
•
•
Final decisions are made by the responsible editor or Editor-in-Chief.
Publication Policy and Ethical Considerations
Each journal follows relevant guidance and promotes transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct in publishing.
Use of AI Tools by Reviewers
Reviewers may use generative AI or AI-assisted tools in a limited and responsible manner for purposes such as language checking, literature searching, or comparison of publicly available research information. However, reviewers must exercise their own independent scholarly judgment at all times and remain fully responsible for the content, quality, and integrity of their review reports.
Reviewers must not rely on AI-generated evaluations, recommendations, or automated decision-making in place of their own expert assessment. The critical appraisal of originality, methodology, significance, ethical standards, and suitability for publication must be conducted personally by the reviewer.
Reviewers must also protect manuscript confidentiality. Review materials are confidential and must not be shared, uploaded, or reused. Unpublished manuscripts, data, figures, or any confidential submission content must not be uploaded to public or unauthorized AI systems.
This policy is intended to ensure that peer review remains rigorous, fair, confidential, and grounded in qualified human expertise while allowing the responsible use of supportive technologies.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are selected based on demonstrated expertise, publication record, and relevant subject knowledge. Reviewers must commit to being timely, fair and professional in conducting their reviews. Each reviewer will receive electronic access to article submissions in the HPG journals and they will need to complete on-line evaluations. They are barred from reviewing articles submitted by professional colleagues employed by the same organization.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Promptness
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author(s) is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s). Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
Reviewers should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should disclose conflicts of interest resulting from direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, and avoid cases in which such conflicts preclude an objective evaluation.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.