Quick Menu

Upcoming Journals
  • No Upcoming Journals

European Journal of Nutrition & Food Safety

Editorial Policy

 

____________________________________________

Journal Information:

 

ISSN: 2347-5641
Frequency: Quarterly
Journal DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.9734/ejnfs (Link)
Peer-review model: Double blind peer review
Digital Archiving: Journal Repository (JR)

Associate Chief Editors

Prof. Mary Ward, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland.

Dr. Morten Poulsen, Head of research group, Div. of Toxicology and Risk Assessment, National Food Institute, Technical University of DenmarkDenmark

Prof. Bernhard Watzl, Head, Department of Physiology and Biochemistry of Nutrition, Max Rubner-Institute, Karlsruhe, Germany

Founding Chief Editor:

Prof. Hans VerhagenHead of the Risk Assessment and Scientific Assistance Department (RASA), European Food Safety Authority

_____________________________________________

 

European Journal of Nutrition and Food Safety (EJNFS) (ISSN: 2347-5641) welcomes research papers, reviews, short communications, case studies and (extended) abstracts of governmental reports in the areas of nutrition and food safety.


The subject matters include:


• Human nutrition
• Food safety and toxicology
• Public health nutrition
• Food consumption, intake and exposure
• Diet-related non-communicable diseases
• Policy matters in nutrition and food safety
• Food security
• Grey literature government reports
• Abstracts of scientific meetings in nutrition and food safety
(See the complete scope here)

This journal is an international journal and scope is not confined by boundary of any country or region.

 

 

Peer review Policy

This journal follows strict double blind fold review policy to ensure neutral evaluation. During this review process identity of both the authors and reviewers are kept hidden to ensure unbiased evaluation. High quality manuscripts are peer-reviewed by minimum two peers of the same field.


Review mechanism for (extended) abstracts
In case of (extended) abstracts of grey literature government reports, the (extended) abstract and the full report will be subjected to peer review. However, the full report will only be judged as “acceptable” or “not acceptable”. In case of an acceptable report the text of the full report will not be changed as it is already published on an institute’s website, but the (extended) abstract will be judged as a normal manuscript. Hence, the peer review will cover both the (extended) abstract (as a normal paper) as well as the full report (with a yes or no judgment). Only if the full report is considered “acceptable” the (extended) abstract can be judged acceptable (upon revision, if applicable).

 

Reviewer suggestion

It is a prerequisite to submit, with the manuscript, the names, addresses and e-mail addresses of 4 potential reviewers (When suggesting peer reviewers, please follow these guidelines to avoid any probable conflict of interest. Suggested reviewers should not: i) be from the same department or division as one of the authors (the same university, state, country should also be avoided); ii) have been a research guide or student of one of the authors within the past 10 years; iii) have collaborated with one of the authors within the past 10 years; iv) be employees of non-academic organizations with which one of the authors has collaborated within the past 10 years). It is sole right of the editorial team to decide whether suggested reviewers to be used or not.  

 

Reviewer selection

Reviewer selection is a critical parameter to maintain the high peer review standard of any journal. Many factors are considered during peer reviewer selection like: proof of expertise in terms of published papers in the same area in reputed journals, affiliation and reputation, specific suggestion, etc. We try to avoid reviewers who are slow, careless, or do not provide sufficient justification for their decision (positive or negative). Authors can also identify peers that they want not to review their paper. As far as possible, SDI editorial team respects requests by authors to exclude reviewers whom they consider to be unsuitable. We also, as much as possible, try to rule out those reviewers who may have an obvious competing interest.

 

 

Review process flow

The reviewers’ comments are generally sent to authors within 3-8 weeks after submission. With the help of the reviewers’ comments, FINAL decision (accepted or accepted with minor revision or accepted with major revision or rejected) will be sent to the corresponding author by the Chief Editor/editor. Reviewers are asked if they would like to review a revised version of the manuscript. The editorial office may request a re-review regardless of a reviewer's response in order to ensure a thorough and fair evaluation. Reviewers who may have offered an opinion not in accordance with the FINAL decision should not feel that their recommendation was not duly considered and their service not properly appreciated. Experts often disagree, and it is the job of the editorial team to make a FINAL decision.

 

Authors are encouraged to submit the revised manuscript within 7-30 days of receipt of reviewer’s comment (in case of minor corrections). But at any case revised manuscript submission should not go beyond 8 weeks (only for the cases of major revision which involves additional experiment, analysis etc.), in order to maintain this journal’s mission of fast publication. Along with corrected manuscript authors need to submit filled ‘SDI review comment form 1.6’, any rebuttal to any point raised by reviewers. The chief Editor of the journal will have exclusive power to take final decision for acceptance or rejection during any dispute.

 

One of the main policies of this journal is ‘fast spreading of scientific findings’ by publishing suitable manuscripts (except some abnormal cases). Under special circumstance, if the review process takes more time, author(s) will be informed accordingly. The editorial board or referees may re-review manuscripts that are accepted pending revision. Manuscripts with latest and significant findings will be handled with the highest priority so that it could be published within a very short time. SDI is determined to promote integrity in research publication. In case of any suspected misconduct, SDI management will reserve the right to re-review any manuscript at any stages before final publication.

 

General guidelines for Peer Review Process

SCIENCEDOMAIN international strongly opposes the practice of duplicate publication or any type of plagiarism. If you suspect any unethical practice in this manuscript, kindly write it in the report with some proof/web links.
Studies which are carried out to reconfirm / replicate the results of any previously published paper with new data-set, may be considered for publication. But these types of studies should have a ‘clear declaration’ of this matter.
SDI believes that no manuscript should be rejected only on the basis of ‘lack of Novelty’, provided the manuscript is sufficiently robust and technically sound. Too often a journal's decision to publish a paper is dominated by what the Editor/reviewer think is interesting and will gain greater readership — both of which are subjective judgments and lead to decisions which are frustrating and delay the publication. SDI journals will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound. Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership (who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them).
Materials & methods (Kindly comment on the suitability and technical standards of the methods. Sufficient details of the methods/process should be provided so that another researcher is able to reproduce the experiments described)
Results & discussion (Kindly comment on: 1. Are the data well controlled and robust? 2. Authors should provide relevant and current references during discussion. 3. Discussion and conclusions should be based on actual facts and figures. Biased claims should be pointed out. 4. Are statistical analyses must for this paper? If yes, have sufficient and appropriate statistical analyses been carried out?)
Conclusion (Is the conclusion supported by the data, discussed inside the manuscript? Conclusions should not be biased and should be based on the data, presented inside the manuscript only. Authors should provide adequate proof for their claims without overselling them)
•  Are all the references cited relevant and adequate? Are there any other suitable current references authors need to cite?
SDI believes in constructive criticism. Reviewers are encouraged to be honest but not offensive in their language (Unnecessarily harsh words may be modified or removed at the editors' discretion). It is expected that the reviewers should suggest the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to make it acceptable. Comments of the reviewers should be sufficiently informative and helpful to reach a Editorial Decision. We strongly advise that a negative review should also explain the weaknesses of any manuscript, so that the concerned authors can understand the basis of rejection and he/she can improve the manuscript based on those comments. Authors also should not confuse straightforward and true comments with unfair criticism.
We are very much reluctant to go against suggestions (particularly on technical areas) of the reviewers. Therefore, authors are requested to treat the suggestions of reviewers with utmost importance.

Appeal: Rejected papers are given the opportunity for a formal appeal. Appeal requests should be made in writing, not by telephone, and should be addressed to contact@sciencedomain.org with the word "appeal" in the subject line. If an author remains unsatisfied, he or she can write to the Editorial Office, citing the manuscript reference number. In all these cases, it is likely that some time will elapse before SDI can respond, and the paper must not be submitted for publication elsewhere during this time. Authors should provide detailed reasons for the appeal and point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or Academic Editor's comments. Authors should also be aware that priority is given to new submissions to the journal and so the processing of the appeal may well take longer than the processing of the original submission. If an appeal is rejected, further appeals of the decision will not be considered and the paper may not be resubmitted.

 

Post-publication peer review:


1. SDI journal Web sites provide the ability for users to comment on articles to facilitate community evaluation and discourse around published articles. Comment section is mainly dedicated to promote "Post-publication peer review". Therefore, all SDI journals strictly follow 'pre-publication OPEN peer review' and strongly encourage "Post-publication peer review". As a result of this "Post-publication peer review", if authors agree and or journal Editors agree (and or SDI agrees) that any correction is necessary, then it will be published FREE of cost by following SDI Correction and retraction policy (http://www.sciencedomain.org/page.php?id=sdi-correction-and-retraction-policy).


2. Users, who want to comment, are encouraged to register in SDI website (http://www.sciencedomain.org/register.php). But if anybody doesn’t want to register, we'll respect the decision. In order to honour 'free flow of thoughts' unregistered user are also welcome to comment. Social login is also encouraged. 

 

3. At the end of every comment, user must identify himself/herself by providing the following information 1. Full Name 2. Name of the Department, University, institute, etc. (These two information will be displayed publicly). We don't like 'anonymous' comments. Comments with 'forged identity' will be deleted.

 

Note: Users must see and agree to our complete Comment Policy (Link: http://www.sciencedomain.org/page.php?id=comment-policy)

  


SDI Plagiarism Policy

SCIENCEDOMAIN international strongly opposes the practice of duplicate publication or any type of plagiarism. 

This journal aims to publish original high quality research work. Submission of manuscript to this journal indicates that the study has not been published anywhere or not been submitted elsewhere for publication. If author(s) are using any part of published paper (in English or any other language), they should give proper reference or in any case, if required they should get permission from the previous publisher or copyright holder (whichever is suitable).  

 

Plagiarized manuscripts would not be considered for publication. If plagiarism is found in any published paper after internal investigation, a letter would be immediately sent to all the authors, their affiliated institutes and funding agency, if applied and subsequently the paper will be retracted.

 

Plagiarism policy of this journal is mainly inspired from the plagiarism policy of The Nature. Plagiarism policy of this journal is described below:

 

1. Plagiarism is when an author attempts to pass off someone else's work as his or her own. This journal also adopted IEEE definition of plagiarism to deal such cases. It defines plagiarism as "the reuse of someone else’s prior ideas, processes, results, or words without explicitly acknowledging the original author and source.”

2. Plagiarism can be said to have clearly occurred when large chunks of text have been cut-and-pasted. Such manuscripts would not be considered for publication in a SDI journal. Papers with confirmed plagiarisms are rejected immediately.

3. But minor plagiarism without dishonest intent is relatively frequent, for example, when an author reuses parts of an introduction from an earlier paper.

4. Duplicate publication, sometimes called self-plagiarism, occurs when an author reuses substantial parts of his or her own published work without providing the appropriate references. This can range from getting an identical paper published in multiple journals, to 'salami-slicing', where authors add small amounts of new data to a previous paper. Self-plagiarism, also referred to as ‘text recycling’, is a topical issue and is currently generating much discussion among editors. Opinions are divided as to how much text overlap with an author’s own previous publications is acceptable. We normally follow the guidelines given in COPE website. Editors, reviewers and authors are also requested to strictly follow this excellent guideline (Reference: Text Recycling Guidelines: http://publicationethics.org/text-recycling-guidelines).

5. In case of 'suspected minor plagiarism', authors are contacted for clarification. Depending on all these reports, reviewers and editors decide final fate of the manuscript.  The SDI journal editors judge any case of which they become aware (either by their own knowledge of and reading about the literature, or when alerted by referees) on its own merits.

6. Use of automated software is helpful to detect the 'copy-paste' problem. All submitted manuscripts are checked by the help of different databases, eTBLAST, Plagiarism Detection tools, etc. At the same time scientific implication of the case ('suspected minor plagiarism'), also judged by reviewers and editors. Plagiarism Detection tools are useful, but they should to be used in tandem with human judgment and discretion for the final conclusion. Therefore, suspected cases of plagiarisms are judged by editors on 'case-to-case basis'.

7. Editors have the final decision power for these cases.

 

Some useful information is available in the following links:

1. http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/library/researchers/plagiarismdetection

2. http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/plagiarism.html

3. http://www.artjohnson.umd.edu/bioe/Threshold-for-Plagiarism.pdf

4. http://www.zju.edu.cn/jzus/download/editorpapers/SCIMsurvey.pdf

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism_detection

6. The Complete Guide to Referencing & Avoiding Plagiarism

7. CrossCheck Plagiarism Screening: What’s the Magic Number?

 

SDI Correction and retraction policy

To know about SDI Correction and retraction policy, click here.

To know about SDI representative guideline for authorship dispute, kindly click here.

SDI is determined to promote integrity in research publication. We have great respect and we generally follow the guidelines, given by COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE) for any publication disputes, authorship disputes, etc. For these kinds of disputes, we generally visit and follow the COPE website and author(s) are also requested to do so. Excellent guidelines, related to COPE’s Code of Conduct and its advice to tackle cases of suspected misconduct, are available in this link (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts). All the materials available in COPE website are the copyright of COPE.

 

Portability of Peer-review

In order to support efficient and thorough peer review, SDI aim to reduce the number of times a manuscript is reviewed after rejection from any SDI journal, thereby speeding up the publication process and reducing the burden on peer reviewers. Request from author for 'transfer of manuscript' from one journal to another journal of SCIENCEDOMAIN international, also may be accommodated under this policy. Under the above mentioned cases, by following 'portability of peer-review' policy, SDI will pass the review comments of a particular manuscript to the editor of another journal at the authors' request. We will reveal the reviewers names to the handling editor for editorial purposes unless reviewers let us know when they return their report that they do not wish us to share their report with another SDI published journal and/or that they do not wish to participate further in the peer review of this manuscript.

 

We try to follow and we also recommend authors, reviewers and editors to follow ICMJE Recommendations.

To konw other SDI General Editorial Policies, applicable for all SDI journals, click here.

 

Disclaimer: This international journal has no connection with any scholarly society or association or any specific geographic location or any country (like USA, UK, Germany, etc). This is an independent journal run by SCIENCEDOMAIN international. Legal contact address of editorial office and other offices are available in this link.

 


 

 

Search this site

Advanced Search

Announcement & News

ISI Thomson Reuters selected British Journal of Pharmaceutical Research for Emerging Sources Citation Index

We are delighted to inform that ISI Thomson Reuters selected British Journal of Pharmaceutical Resea...

SCOPUS selected Annual Research & Review in Biology (ARRB)

We are delighted to inform that famous indexing organization SCOPUS (from Elsevier) selected  A...

Index Copernicus Evaluation Result Released

We are delighted to inform that Index Copernicus (a leading indexing organization from Pol...

Journal Repository (JR): Permanent Digital Archiving of SDI journals

SDI is happy to announce that all our journals are now permanently archived in Journal Repository (J...

Index Copernicus Value of British Journal of Medicine and Medical Research

  We are delighted to inform that Index Copernicus (a leading indexing organization ...

SDI journal got 35th ranking in Publons

We are delighted to announce (as of 04/01/2016) that British Journal of Medicine and Medical Re...

Growth of SDI and world publication market

As of 2014, total 25,064 journals are competing in World market of journal publication. In 2011, tot...

Publication and site statistics (up to Sept, 2015)

  Number of submission: 22181 (Total up to Sept, 2015) Number of published paper: 10949&n...

Index Medicus selected 15 SDI journals

We are delighted to inform that Index Medicus (IMSEAR) has selected following 15 SDI journals for in...

SCIENCEDOMAIN international received 5844 submissions in 2013

SCIENCEDOMAIN international is pleased to announce that it has received 5844 submissions in 2013, ac...



SCIENCEDOMAIN Awards

  • No Awards listed.

Browser Compatibility : Mozila firefox, Google Crome and IE 7 & above. Creative Commons License Terms & Condition   |   Privacy Policy   |   Join Us   |   Help   |   Contact Us
© Copyright 2010-2017, SCIENCEDOMAIN international. All rights reserved.