Guide for reviewers

Peer review is the foundation of scholarly publishing at Terra Alimentaria. It ensures that the research we publish meets rigorous standards of quality, credibility, and scientific integrity. This guide serves as a comprehensive resource for our reviewers, detailing best practices, ethical considerations, and step-by-step instructions for navigating the Single-Blind peer review process in our OJS 3.5 system, in compliance with COPE guidelines and Permendiktisaintek No. 9 Tahun 2026.

1. Before You Begin

When invited to peer review, you will receive the manuscript's abstract to help you decide whether to accept the invitation and conduct the review. Please consider the following before responding:

Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel equipped to provide a high-quality, scientifically sound assessment. If you are only familiar with part of the manuscript (e.g., the statistical analysis), inform the editor in your response.
Do you have a conflict of interest? A conflict of interest occurs if you have a personal, financial, or professional relationship with the authors (e.g., recent collaboration, same institution, direct competitor). If in doubt, disclose the potential conflict to the editor early.
Do you have the time? Editors rely on timely, constructive feedback for decision-making. If you cannot complete the review within the requested deadline, please decline the invitation or immediately request an extension.
Prompt Responses: Respond to the invitation promptly to avoid delays. If you must decline, suggesting alternative qualified reviewers is highly appreciated.

2. Managing Your Review

Confidentiality

As a reviewer, you must treat the manuscript and all associated data as strictly confidential. You must not share, discuss, or use the unpublished data for your own research or competitive advantage without prior authorization from the editor.

The Use of Generative AI

Reviewing a scientific paper requires critical human thinking, assessment, and oversight. Terra Alimentaria enforces strict guidelines regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) by peer reviewers:

Do NOT upload the manuscript: Reviewers must never upload the manuscript, figures, or data into public AI tools. Doing so violates the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights.
Supportive Use Only: AI tools may only be used in a supportive capacity, such as improving the grammar, structure, or language of your review report, using private or enterprise AI models that do not retain or learn from your data.
Mandatory Disclosure: If you use an AI tool to help write or structure your review report, you must disclose it in a separate section of your review using the following exact format:

"During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used Trinka AI (Enago) [or applicable tool name] solely to improve the readability and language clarity of the manuscript. After using this tool, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the final publication."

Navigating OJS 3.5

All review processes are managed through the Terra Alimentaria Open Journal Systems (OJS 3.5) portal. Click the link in your invitation email to log in. You will be able to view the manuscript, accept the review, type or paste your feedback into the designated text boxes, and select your final recommendation.

3. Step-by-Step Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript

The First Read-Through

Your first read-through should be a quick skim to form an initial impression of the paper and give you an idea of whether your final recommendation will be to accept, revise, or reject the paper. Make notes and jot down line numbers for easier reference later.

Research relevance and originality: Is the main question interesting, relevant, and original? How does it contribute to the field compared to existing studies?
Clarity and quality: Is the argument easy to follow? Are the conclusions well-supported by the evidence? If the author disagrees with the academic consensus, do they have a substantial case?
Data presentation: Do the tables, figures, and images effectively support the findings, or do they seem unnecessary?

Identifying Major Flaws

Focus on finding major issues that could affect the manuscript’s credibility or reliability. If there are critical flaws in the methodology or data, it's very likely the manuscript will need to be rejected.

Conclusions contradicting the evidence: Do the conclusions contradict the author's own statistical or qualitative data?
Methodological concerns: Are the methods outdated or unreliable? Key areas to assess include sampling methods, use of control experiments, precision of process data, regularity of sampling, and systematic data analysis.
Overlooking key processes: Has the author ignored a process known to have a strong influence on the area under study?
Major flaws in information: Look for insufficient data, unclear tables, contradictory data, or confirmatory data that adds little to current understanding. Document issues with clear reasoning and citations.

Concluding Your First Read

Draft the first two paragraphs of your review to help the editor contextualize your judgment:

Paragraph 1: Summarize the research question, methodology, goals, and conclusions. Highlight the key messages conveyed and emphasize the paper's successful aspects.
Paragraph 2: Provide a conceptual overview of the manuscript’s contribution to the field. State whether it introduces significant new findings, if methods are appropriate, and if data is reliable.

Note: Even if you spot serious flaws, read the entire paper to ensure your initial concerns are correct and to identify any positive aspects to share with the author.

The Second Read-Through

During the second detailed review, focus on refining the manuscript for publication:

Argument construction: Identify unclear sections, factual errors, or invalid arguments.
Clarity and style: Ensure the title reflects the subject, the abstract provides a clear summary, and the keywords align with the content.
Language: Your role is to judge the research content, not to fix language issues. If the writing is poor but understandable, suggest professional language revisions. Correct grammar only if it affects scientific clarity.

4. Section-by-Section Guidance

1. The Introduction

The introduction should clearly set out the research argument, summarize recent literature, and highlight existing gaps in knowledge to establish the need for the research. Originality and topicality must be established using recent, authoritative research (or seminal older papers if methodologically necessary). The introduction must end with clear research aims.

2. Materials and Methods

Academic research should be replicable, repeatable, and robust, following best practices.

Replicable research: Sufficient use of control experiments, repeated analyses, and adequate sampling to confirm trends are not due to chance.
Repeatable methods: Equipment and sampling methods must be described in enough detail that others could follow the exact same steps.
Robust research: A sufficient number of data points is necessary to ensure the reliability of findings.
Best practice: Strict adherence to established standards (e.g., CONSORT Statement) and ethical guidelines.

3. Results and Discussion

Authors should start by describing what the data show in simple terms, refer to statistical analyses (significance, goodness of fit), evaluate the trends, and explain the significance referencing published research. The discussion should gather all information into one cohesive story, addressing any gaps or inconsistencies and suggesting future research paths.

4. Conclusions

Usually a few paragraphs, the conclusions should reflect upon whether the aims were achieved. They should not introduce surprising new information. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, ask for them to be rewritten.

5. Images, Graphs, and Data Tables

Check that titles, labels, and statistical notations are clear. Verify that results seem plausible, trends support the discussion, and there are sufficient data points. Check for image manipulation; if you feel an image was edited inappropriately to emphasize a story, highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor.

6. List of References

Accuracy: Check the accuracy and format (APA 7th Edition) of references central to the argument.
Adequacy: Ensure they support the manuscript's claims and that significant opposing/similar studies are not missing.
Balance: Ensure the list is helpful, fair to competing authors, and not over-reliant on self-citation.

7. Plagiarism

If you identify a very similar paper, advise the author to emphasize their novel aspects to differentiate it, or recommend rejection if it is unoriginal. If you suspect plagiarism but cannot locate the source, note this to the editor, who can utilize similarity detection software.

5. Structuring Your Report

Your review should include comments to the authors and, if necessary, confidential comments to the editors. Write clearly, avoid complex language, and number your points referring to specific page and line numbers.

Summary

Give positive feedback first.
Briefly summarize the paper’s content and findings.
Put the findings in the context of existing literature.
Indicate the work's significance, novelty, strengths, and completeness.
State any major flaws or weaknesses.

Major Issues

State major flaws and their severity regarding the paper's impact.
Note if similar work has already been published without acknowledgement.
Check if evidence strongly supports findings that challenge current thinking.
Clearly indicate what major revisions are required.
Identify major presentational problems (unclear figures/tables).

Minor Issues

Note where meaning is ambiguous and how to correct it.
Point out incorrect references, missing citations, or excessive self-citations.
Identify factual, numerical, or unit errors.
Note inappropriate or incorrectly labeled tables/figures.

6. Sex, Gender, and Ethical Considerations

Sex and Gender Reporting

We encourage reviewers to verify whether the study follows the SAGER (Sex and Gender Equity in Research) guidelines. Assess whether sex-disaggregated data and gender analysis are included where relevant. Ensure the terms "sex" (biological distinction) and "gender" (socially constructed roles) are used correctly. If the study included only one sex/gender, ensure the authors have scientifically justified this limitation.

Ethical Considerations

Ensure that research involving human or animal subjects explicitly states that it received proper ethical approval (e.g., IRB or IACUC) and informed consent. If this is missing, highlight it as a major required revision.

7. Making Your Recommendation

You will indicate your recommendation from a fixed-choice list in OJS 3.5. Be polite, honest, and objective. Never include anything in your report to the authors that you wouldn't discuss with them in person.

Accept Submission: Provide details outlining why, and if there are any areas that could be slightly improved.
Revisions Required (Major/Minor): State specific changes that need to be made so the author can reply point-by-point. You may state whether you opt in or out of the post-revision review.
Decline Submission (Reject): Keep feedback focused on the research, not the author. Give constructive feedback describing ways they could improve the research. Avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while being overly polite to the author, as this causes confusion.

Confidential Comments to Editors

Reserve this section for communicating suspected malpractice such as plagiarism, fraud, unattributed work, unethical procedures, duplicate publication, bias, or inappropriate image manipulation. Authors cannot see this feedback.

8. After Your Review

Once you have submitted your review, you must continue to treat the manuscript and data as confidential until it is officially published.

Reviewer Recognition: Terra Alimentaria deeply values your contribution. After the handling editor acknowledges your submitted review, you will be able to download an official PDF Certificate of Reviewing directly from your OJS dashboard. You can also sync your peer review activity with ORCID or forward your acknowledgement email to Web of Science to build your public researcher profile.

We sincerely thank you for dedicating your time, expertise, and critical insight to Terra Alimentaria. Your efforts directly elevate the global standard of food science research.