Peer review process

Terra Alimentaria is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific integrity and publication quality. To ensure the validity, relevance, and originality of the research we publish, all submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous, transparent, and impartial evaluation process. Our peer review procedures strictly adhere to the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and comply with the national accreditation standards for scientific journals mandated by Permendiktisaintek No. 9 Tahun 2026.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment (Desk Review)

Upon submission via the OJS 3.5 platform, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Section Editor conducts a comprehensive initial screening of the manuscript (Desk Review). This assessment is typically completed within 7 days and ensures that the submission:

  • Scope Alignment: Falls strictly within the aims and scope of Terra Alimentaria.
  • Formatting & Completeness: Adheres to the structural, technical, and referential requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.
  • Originality & Similarity Check: Passes a strict similarity check for plagiarism and text recycling using standard detection software (e.g., Turnitin/iThenticate). Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding the acceptable threshold (typically > 20%, excluding quotes and bibliography) or showing signs of AI-generated plagiarism will be rejected immediately.
  • Ethical Declarations: Contains all necessary declarations, including Conflicts of Interest, Funding Information, and proper IRB/IACUC ethical approvals for human or animal subjects.

Manuscripts that do not meet these fundamental criteria are rejected at this stage (Desk Reject) without being sent for external review, ensuring a rapid decision for the authors. If the assigned handling editor has a conflict of interest with the authors, they will recuse themselves, and another independent editor will be assigned.

2. Single-Blind Peer Review & Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment advance to a strict Single-Blind Peer Review process. In this model, the identities of the reviewers are kept strictly confidential from the authors to ensure honest, objective, and unbiased feedback. However, the reviewers are provided with the names and affiliations of the authors.

To comply with Permendiktisaintek No. 9 Tahun 2026 regarding journal quality and diversity, the editorial team carefully selects a minimum of two independent, external reviewers. Reviewer selection is based on the following criteria:

  • Expertise: Reviewers must be recognized experts in the specific subject area of the manuscript, evidenced by their recent publication record.
  • Institutional & Geographic Diversity: Reviewers are selected from institutions different from those of the authors. Terra Alimentaria actively recruits international reviewers alongside national experts to maintain a global scientific standard.
  • Absence of Conflict of Interest (COI): Prior to accepting a review invitation, reviewers must declare that they have no competing financial, institutional, or personal relationships with the authors.

3. Reviewer Evaluation & Confidentiality

Reviewers are required to provide substantive, constructive, and detailed feedback. Check-box only reviews are not accepted. The evaluation focuses on:

  • Originality & Novelty: The significance of the findings to the fields of food science and technology.
  • Methodological Soundness: The appropriateness of the experimental design, statistical analysis, and replicability of the study.
  • Ethical Compliance: Verification that the study meets international ethical standards for research.
  • Clarity & Presentation: The logical flow of the argument, appropriate use of tables/figures, and language clarity.

Confidentiality: Following COPE guidelines, the manuscript is considered a privileged, confidential document. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from sharing, discussing, or utilizing the unpublished data for their own research purposes.

4. The Revision Process

Based on the reviewers' evaluations, authors may be asked to revise their manuscript. Authors will receive the anonymized reviewer reports and are expected to:

  • Submit a revised manuscript with changes visibly highlighted (e.g., using track changes or highlighted text).
  • Provide a detailed, point-by-point Response Letter addressing every comment and critique made by the reviewers and the editor. If an author disagrees with a reviewer's comment, they must provide a scientifically justified rebuttal.

Manuscripts requiring Minor Revisions are usually reviewed by the handling editor upon resubmission. Manuscripts requiring Major Revisions will typically be sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of evaluation to ensure all concerns have been adequately addressed.

5. Final Decision & Academic Integrity

The Editor-in-Chief (or the handling Section Editor) makes the final publication decision based on the comprehensive reviewer reports and the authors' revisions. If the two initial reviewers' opinions differ significantly (e.g., one recommends acceptance, the other rejection), a third independent reviewer will be invited to provide an adjudicating assessment.

The final decision will be one of the following:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is ready for publication in its current form.
  • Revisions Required (Minor or Major): The manuscript requires further improvements before a final decision can be made.
  • Decline Submission (Reject): The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication, lacks scientific rigor, or fails to address reviewer concerns.

Strict Prohibition of Guaranteed Acceptance and Premature LoAs: Terra Alimentaria strictly adheres to merit-based publishing. Under no circumstances do we guarantee or promise fast-tracked acceptance of any manuscript. Furthermore, the issuance of a Letter of Acceptance (LoA) prior to the full completion of the rigorous peer-review process and a formal editorial decision of "Accept Submission" is strictly prohibited and will not be tolerated. Any claims of guaranteed publication are fraudulent and a severe breach of publication ethics.

6. Submissions by Editorial Board Members

To ensure absolute impartiality, any manuscript submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, an Associate Editor, or an Editorial Board Member is handled by an independent editor who is entirely separate from the submitting author. The submitting editor is completely blinded from the review process in the OJS system and has no access to the reviewer identities or the decision-making workflow for their own paper.

7. Appeals and Complaints

In adherence to COPE practices, authors have the right to appeal an editorial rejection if they believe the decision was based on a fundamental scientific misunderstanding or procedural error. Appeals must be submitted via email to the Editorial Office with a detailed, evidence-based rebuttal letter. The Editor-in-Chief (or an assigned independent adjudicator) will review the appeal and make a final, non-reversible determination.

8. Turnaround Time

Terra Alimentaria strives to provide an efficient and timely review process while maintaining rigorous quality control. Authors can track the status of their manuscript at any time via their OJS 3.5 dashboard.

  • Initial Desk Decision: Within 1 to 2 weeks of submission.
  • First Peer Review Decision: We aim to provide authors with an initial decision (post-review) within 4 to 6 weeks of submission.
  • Total Time to Publication: Typically 8 to 12 weeks from submission to final publication, heavily dependent on the promptness of the authors' revisions.