Guide for reviewers

Peer reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the high academic standards of Trophos Science of Food. We deeply appreciate the voluntary contributions of experts who help us ensure the publication of rigorously validated and impactful research in Food Science and Technology.

1. Invitation to Review

Manuscripts submitted to Trophos Science of Food are evaluated by at least two independent experts. When you receive an invitation to review, we kindly ask you to:

  • Accept or decline the invitation at your earliest convenience based on the manuscript's title and abstract.
  • Suggest alternative qualified reviewers if you must decline the invitation.
  • Promptly request a deadline extension from the Editorial Office if you require more time to provide a comprehensive report.

2. Potential Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest that could be perceived as a bias for or against the paper or its authors. Please decline the invitation or email the Editorial Office if:

  • You work at the same institution as one of the authors.
  • You have been a co-author, collaborator, or joint grant holder with any of the authors within the past three years.
  • You have a close personal or professional relationship, rivalry, or antipathy with any of the authors.
  • You may financially gain or lose from the publication of the paper.
  • You have any other non-financial conflicts of interest (political, ideological, academic, or commercial).

3. Declaration of Confidentiality

Trophos Science of Food operates a strict single-blind peer review process. While reviewers are provided with the authors' names and affiliations to provide context, the identities of the reviewers are kept strictly confidential from the authors.

  • You must treat the manuscript and its contents as confidential documents until publication.
  • Be careful not to accidentally reveal your identity in your comments or in the metadata of any attached files (e.g., Microsoft Word or PDF documents).
  • In accordance with our AI Policy, reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts into public generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT) to assist with the review, as this violates the authors' confidentiality and intellectual property rights.

4. Preparing the Review Report

Review reports must be written in English and focus on providing constructive, neutral, and objective criticism that helps the authors improve their manuscript. Derogatory or hostile comments are unacceptable.

Reviewers should not recommend excessive citations of their own work, another author's work, or articles from TROPHOS merely to increase citation counts. Suggested references must clearly improve the scientific quality of the manuscript.

Structure of the Review Report:

  • Brief Summary: A short paragraph outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions, and its overall strengths.
  • General Comments: Highlighting areas of weakness, the testability of the hypothesis, methodological inaccuracies, or missing controls.
  • Specific Comments: Referring to specific line numbers, tables, or figures that contain inaccuracies or unclear statements. Please focus on the scientific content rather than minor English spelling or formatting errors, as these will be addressed during the final copyediting stage.

Guiding Questions for Original Research Articles:

  • Is the manuscript clear, relevant to the field of food science, and logically structured?
  • Is the experimental design sound and appropriate to test the hypothesis?
  • Are the results reproducible based on the details provided in the Materials and Methods section?
  • Are the figures and tables appropriate, easy to interpret, and accurately presenting the data?
  • Are the data interpreted appropriately, with adequate statistical analysis?
  • Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
  • Are most of the cited references relevant and recently published (within the last 5 years)?

Guiding Questions for Review Articles:

  • Is the review comprehensive, critical, and relevant to the field?
  • Does it identify meaningful gaps in current knowledge?
  • If a similar review has been published recently, does this manuscript provide new insights that remain highly relevant to the scientific community?
  • Are the statements and conclusions drawn coherent and fully supported by the listed citations?

5. Final Recommendation Based on your evaluation, you will be asked to provide one of the following recommendations to the Editor:

  • Accept Submission: The paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
  • Revisions Required: The paper requires minor or major adjustments before it can be accepted.
  • Resubmit for Review: The paper requires substantial restructuring or additional experiments and should go through a second round of peer review.
  • Decline Submission: The paper is fundamentally flawed, lacks originality, or falls completely outside the scope of the journal.