Review Process

Peer-Review Process for Authors

Clinical Science of Nutrition employs a double-blind peer review system, ensuring that the identities of both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to one another. Each manuscript undergoes a thorough evaluation process, typically involving at least two external reviewers and editors from the Journal.

The following is an outline of the peer review process:

  1. The submitted manuscript is first reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, who determines its suitability for further evaluation. A Section Editor is assigned to each manuscript deemed suitable for review. The Editor-in-Chief's preliminary review covers adherence to the Journal's focus and scope, publication quality, language quality, ethical standards, and conflicts of interest.
  2. Manuscripts that do not qualify for peer review, such as those that lack scientific merit, originality, or relevance to the target audience, may be rejected at this stage without being sent for external review.
  3. If the Editor-in-Chief and/or a Section Editor deems the manuscript suitable for evaluation, it is then sent to at least two independent reviewers for double-blind peer review.
  4. The Section Editor carefully reviews the evaluations provided by the reviewers and then makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.
  5. Ultimately, the final decision to accept or reject an article rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals and Complaints

The Journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on appeals and complaints regarding the peer review process. Appeals to editorial decisions are welcome. However, authors must present strong evidence, additional information, and data in the appeal letter.

Authors can send an appeal letter to the editorial office via [email protected]. Appeal letters should include (if available):

  • The reasons for the appeal,
  • Details of the technical errors,
  • Reasons for disagreements and disputes,
  • Evidence regarding conflict of interest,
  • Additional or new resources, evidence, information, and data.

The editors will respond to the request within two months. Editors may reject or accept the manuscript, request a revision, or suggest initiating an additional review process. All decisions on appeals are final.

Manuscript Withdrawal

Manuscripts that have been sent for peer review cannot be withdrawn arbitrarily. However, if significant delays occur in the peer-review process, authors may withdraw their manuscripts. For manuscripts that have not yet begun peer review, the corresponding author may request withdrawal by emailing [email protected].

Peer-Review Process for Editors and Reviewers

Technical checks are carried out by the editorial office, including:

  • Similarity checks via Turnitin or iThenticate,
  • Format requirements,
  • Whether all the necessary information is provided or not,
  • Completion of files, forms, documents, and statements.

Preliminary review by the Editor-in-Chief includes adherence to:

  • Journal's aim, focus, and scope,
  • Publication quality,
  • Language quality,
  • Ethical standards,
  • Conflict of interest.

The Editor-in-Chief either rejects the manuscript or forwards it to the Section Editors.

Reviews by the Section Editors include:

  • Objective errors,
  • Language errors (grammar, spelling rules, and related scientific literature),
  • Research quality,
  • Compliance with ethical considerations and standards for the research.

Section Editors either reject the manuscript or forward it to peer reviewers.

The review process by peer reviewers includes:

  • Declaration of competing interests: If there is a conflict of interest, the editorial office will evaluate the relationship. If deemed permissible, reviewers will be assigned. The editorial board will follow the COPE's guidelines on conflicts of interests.
  • Thorough review of the manuscript.
  • Quality evaluations: Research question, hypothesis, theoretical background, and relevance to the scientific literature, methodology, scientific standards, language and presentation, major strengths and weaknesses.
  • Providing feedback: Suggestions for changes to improve the study or the presentation of the results.
  • Recommendation: Making one of four recommendations: "Accept for publication", "Minor revision", "Major revision", or "Reject".
  • Drafting a review report:
    • Supporting the points made in the comments with literature citations if appropriate.
    • Providing specific feedback on the manuscript file (e.g., PDF comments) if needed.
  • Confidential Comments: Providing confidential comments to the Editor-in-Chief, given separately from the comments to the authors.

Final Decision for Publication

  • Once the authors complete revisions and/or submit the final version of the manuscript, the Section Editors forward their recommendation for publication to the Editor-in-Chief. There may be more than one round of peer review before a final decision is made.
  • The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the Section Editors' recommendations and makes a final decision. A manuscript can be either accepted for publication or rejected.
  • If the manuscript is accepted, the production team will prepare it for publication.