Peer Review and Publication Policies

The International Journal of Nutrology (IJN) is committed to independent, fair, confidential, and timely peer review. Primary research articles and other scholarly manuscripts requiring expert assessment are evaluated by external reviewers before an editorial decision is made. Clearly identified non-research content may receive editorial review when appropriate to the article type.

Peer-Review Model

The IJN uses double-blind peer review: reviewers do not receive the authors' identities, and authors do not receive the reviewers' identities. Authors must submit a separate title page containing author information and an anonymous manuscript without names, affiliations, acknowledgments, institutional identifiers, self-identifying statements, or file metadata that could reveal authorship.

Each manuscript that passes initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least three independent external reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise. Additional statistical, methodological, ethical, or specialist review may be requested when necessary. Supplements and special issues are subject to the same standards of editorial independence and peer review as regular scholarly content.

Peer-Review Workflow

Submission and technical check: the editorial office verifies completeness, anonymization, required declarations, reporting checklists, ethical information, and compliance with the Instructions to Authors.
Initial editorial screening: the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor assesses scope, originality, scientific relevance, methodological adequacy, ethical compliance, and minimum reporting quality.
Reviewer selection: qualified and independent external experts are selected and invited by the editor.
External peer review: reviewers assess the manuscript and provide confidential recommendations and constructive comments.
Editorial decision: the responsible editor evaluates the reports, the manuscript, and any additional evidence before issuing a decision.
Revision: when revision is invited, authors submit a revised anonymous manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how every comment was addressed or why a requested change was not made.
Final evaluation: revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the responsible editor, depending on the extent and nature of the changes.
Acceptance and production: only manuscripts that meet the journal's scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements proceed to publication.

Initial Editorial Screening

A manuscript may be rejected before external review when it:

falls outside the aims and scope of the journal;
does not present a clear scientific contribution or sufficient originality;
has serious methodological, statistical, ethical, or reporting deficiencies;
does not provide enough information for readers to understand or, where applicable, reproduce the study;
contains conclusions that are not supported by the data, analysis, or evidence;
does not comply with required reporting guidelines, ethics statements, registration, or consent requirements;
shows evidence of plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified information, citation manipulation, or another integrity concern; or
is written or organized so poorly that reliable scientific assessment is not possible.

Selection and Verification of Reviewers

Reviewer selection is the responsibility of the editor and is independent of the authors. Authors are not required to nominate reviewers. If unsolicited suggestions are provided, the editor is not obliged to use them and must independently verify the reviewer's identity, expertise, affiliation, publication history, contact details, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Editors should seek reviewers with demonstrated expertise relevant to the manuscript. Whenever possible, reviewer identity will be checked through institutional contact information, institutional profiles, ORCID records, or a verifiable publication history. A reviewer suggested by another reviewer may be considered only after the same independent verification.

Reviewers must not be selected when they have a relationship or activity that could reasonably affect their impartiality, including current or recent coauthorship, shared institutional affiliation, supervision, mentorship, active collaboration, direct academic competition, close personal relationships, or relevant financial interests.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers must assess whether they have the necessary expertise, sufficient time, and no relevant conflict of interest. Reviewers must:

accept or decline the invitation promptly;
declare actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest;
decline the review when impartiality cannot be assured;
keep the manuscript, supplementary files, correspondence, and review confidential;
not use unpublished information or ideas for personal, academic, professional, or financial advantage;
provide an evidence-based, constructive, respectful, and sufficiently detailed assessment;
identify relevant published work that has not been properly cited without requesting irrelevant citations or citations intended to benefit the reviewer, an associate, or a journal;
report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data irregularities, unethical research, manipulated images, citation manipulation, or other integrity concerns confidentially to the editor; and
submit the review within the agreed period or inform the editorial office promptly when a delay occurs.

Confidentiality and Use of Artificial Intelligence

Submitted manuscripts are confidential communications. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose the manuscript, review reports, correspondence, or editorial status to unauthorized persons.

Reviewers and editors must not upload a submitted manuscript, supplementary material, peer-review report, or confidential editorial information to a generative artificial intelligence system or other external service when confidentiality, data protection, and content retention cannot be assured. Any permitted use of artificial intelligence must be disclosed to the journal, must not replace human judgment, and remains the full responsibility of the person using the tool.

Conflicts of Interest in Editorial Decisions

Editors must recuse themselves from manuscripts when a financial, personal, professional, academic, institutional, or other relationship could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their judgment. The manuscript must then be assigned to another qualified editor without the conflict.

Manuscripts authored by an editor, editorial board member, journal employee, publisher representative, or close collaborator must be handled independently. The author must have no role in reviewer selection, access to reviewer identities, or the editorial decision.

Editorial Decisions

After considering the manuscript and the external review reports, the responsible editor may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept;
Minor revision;
Major revision;
Reject with permission to submit a substantially new manuscript; or
Reject without invitation to resubmit.

Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the decision. The responsible editor evaluates the quality, consistency, and relevance of the reports and may seek an additional review when reports conflict, lack sufficient justification, or raise specialist questions. Acceptance requires satisfaction of the journal's scientific, ethical, and editorial standards.

Editorial decisions must be based on scientific merit, originality, methodological validity, relevance to the journal's scope, ethical compliance, clarity, and contribution to the field. Decisions must not be influenced by commercial interests, personal relationships, nationality, institutional prestige, positive or negative findings, or the authors' status.

Revised Manuscripts

A revision invitation is not a guarantee of acceptance. Authors must submit:

a revised anonymous manuscript;
a marked or tracked-changes version when requested; and
a point-by-point response identifying each reviewer and editor comment and the corresponding change or reasoned response.

Editors may reject a revised manuscript when essential concerns have not been adequately addressed or when new scientific, ethical, or integrity problems are identified.

Peer-Review Manipulation and Reviewer Misconduct

The IJN does not tolerate fabricated reviewer identities, false contact information, undisclosed relationships, unauthorized review by another person, coercive citation requests, review rings, compromised accounts, or attempts by authors, reviewers, editors, or third parties to control or manipulate the review process.

Indicators of possible manipulation are assessed before, during, and after peer review. The journal may verify identities and affiliations, cancel an invitation, disregard a compromised report, obtain new independent reviews, suspend evaluation, reject a manuscript, correct the scholarly record, notify relevant institutions, or take other proportionate action.

Suspected manipulation or misconduct will be handled according to applicable COPE Core Practices. Following COPE guidance does not constitute a claim that the journal is a COPE member.

Concerns Identified After Publication

If evidence emerges that peer review was compromised after publication, the journal will investigate the matter and may obtain an independent post-publication assessment. Depending on the findings, the journal may publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction and may notify the authors' or reviewers' institutions when appropriate.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe that a material error affected the editorial decision. An appeal must identify the specific error and provide supporting evidence; disagreement with the outcome alone is not sufficient. Appeals and complaints are evaluated by an editor who was not involved in the disputed decision whenever practicable.

Peer-Review Records

The journal maintains an auditable record of editorial screening, reviewer invitations, identity and conflict checks, review reports, author responses, decisions, and relevant correspondence in accordance with its record-retention responsibilities. Reviewer identities remain confidential unless disclosure is required by law or necessary for a formal research-integrity investigation.