Peer Review Process

The Journal of Food, Nutrition, and Health Advances (JFNH Advances) is committed to publishing high-quality, scientifically sound research. To ensure the validity, originality, and significance of the articles we publish, every submitted manuscript undergoes a rigorous and structured peer-review process.

1. Initial Assessment (Desk Review)

Upon submission, all manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board. This initial step checks for:

  • Aims and Scope: Alignment with the journal’s focus on food science, nutrition, health, and medical advances.

  • Originality: All manuscripts are screened for plagiarism and similarity using Turnitin. Manuscripts with an unacceptably high similarity index will be rejected immediately.

  • Format and Ethics: Compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines, including proper ethical disclosures (e.g., IRB approval for human subjects) and formatting.

Manuscripts that do not meet these initial criteria are rejected at the desk review stage without being sent out for external peer review.

2. Single-Blind Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are subjected to a strict Single-Blind Peer Review process.

  • Definition: In our single-blind review system, the identities and affiliations of the authors are visible to the reviewers. However, the reviewers' identities are kept strictly anonymous and confidential from the authors throughout the entire process and after publication.

  • Reviewer Selection: The handling editor assigns the manuscript to at least two independent experts (referees) who have relevant expertise and a strong publication record in the specific topic of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their objectivity and absence of competing interests.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Originality, novelty, and significance of the findings.

  • Scientific reliability and validity of the methodology.

  • Clarity of data presentation, results, and discussion.

  • Soundness of the conclusions drawn from the data.

  • Relevance and completeness of the cited literature.

  • Compliance with ethical standards in health and medical research.

4. Revisions and Final Decision

Based on the independent reports and recommendations provided by the peer reviewers, the handling editor will make one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication without further changes.

  • Revisions Required (Minor/Major): The authors are asked to revise the manuscript to address the reviewers’ specific comments and concerns. The revised manuscript may undergo a second round of review if deemed necessary.

  • Decline Submission (Reject): The manuscript is fundamentally flawed, lacks novelty, or does not meet the scientific standards of the journal.

Final Authority: The Editor-in-Chief holds the final authority on all publication decisions. The editorial decision is final and is made independently of any commercial considerations or the publisher.