admin@va-ra.co
Submit Manuscript | Admin Login

Review Process

Home / Review Process

Peer Review Process

International Journal of Nutrition, Dietetics & Health (IJNDH) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality and integrity of published research. Our review process is designed to provide constructive feedback to authors while maintaining the highest standards of scientific publishing.

Review Workflow

1. Initial Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the Editorial Office to ensure they meet the journal's basic requirements, including scope, format, and ethical standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to the author or rejected without peer review.

2. Editorial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor evaluates the manuscript for scientific merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope. At this stage, manuscripts may be accepted, rejected, or sent for peer review.

3. Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the editorial assessment are sent to at least two independent experts in the field for detailed evaluation. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and absence of conflicts of interest.

4. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on several criteria and provide detailed comments. They may recommend:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with minor or no revisions
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor corrections before acceptance
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may undergo another round of review
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards

5. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' comments, the Editor makes a final decision on the manuscript. The decision is communicated to the corresponding author along with the reviewers' comments (anonymized).

6. Revision and Resubmission

Authors invited to revise their manuscript should address all reviewer comments and provide a point-by-point response. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers for further evaluation.

7. Final Acceptance

Once all revisions are satisfactorily completed, the manuscript is accepted for publication and proceeds to copyediting and production.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Scientific Quality

  • Originality and novelty of the research
  • Scientific significance and contribution to the field
  • Validity of methodology and experimental design
  • Adequacy of sample size and statistical analysis
  • Reproducibility of the research

Presentation

  • Clarity and organization of the manuscript
  • Quality of writing and language
  • Appropriate use of tables and figures
  • Accuracy of references and citations
  • Adherence to journal guidelines

Ethical Considerations

  • Compliance with ethical standards
  • Proper declaration of conflicts of interest
  • Adequate acknowledgment of funding sources
  • Appropriate authorship attribution
  • Adherence to animal and human research ethics

Timeline

We strive to complete the review process as efficiently as possible while maintaining quality:

  • Initial Screening: 3-5 working days
  • Editorial Assessment: 5-7 working days
  • Peer Review: 4-6 weeks
  • Author Revision: 2-4 weeks (depending on extent of revisions)
  • Re-review (if required): 2-3 weeks
  • Final Decision: 1-2 weeks after revision

The total time from submission to first decision is typically 6-8 weeks. However, timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of revisions required.

Double-Blind Review

IJNDH employs a double-blind peer review process, meaning:

  • Reviewer Anonymity: Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors
  • Author Anonymity: Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers

This approach helps eliminate bias and ensures that manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scientific merit. Authors should prepare their manuscripts to ensure anonymity by removing identifying information from the main document and any supplementary files.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Expertise in the subject area of the manuscript
  • Publication record in relevant fields
  • Previous experience as a reviewer
  • Absence of conflicts of interest with authors or the research
  • Ability to provide timely and constructive feedback

Authors may suggest potential reviewers or request exclusion of specific reviewers during submission. The Editor considers these suggestions but makes the final selection.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality, including:

  • Recent collaboration with the authors
  • Employment at the same institution
  • Financial or personal relationships
  • Direct competition in research
  • Intellectual property disputes

Reviewers with conflicts of interest are excluded from reviewing the manuscript. Authors should also declare any potential conflicts of interest during submission.

Appeals

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may do so by submitting a formal appeal letter to the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal should:

  • Provide specific reasons for the appeal
  • Address the concerns raised by reviewers
  • Include additional evidence or clarification if applicable

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated senior editor. The decision on appeals is final. Appeals are only considered for manuscripts rejected without peer review or when there is evidence of procedural error.

Reviewer Recognition

We value the contributions of our reviewers and recognize their efforts through:

  • Annual acknowledgment of reviewers in the journal
  • Certificates of appreciation for active reviewers
  • Opportunity to join the Editorial Board based on performance
  • Access to reviewer performance metrics

Become a Reviewer

Qualified researchers interested in becoming reviewers for IJNDH are invited to register their interest. Reviewers should have:

  • A PhD or equivalent qualification
  • Active research involvement in relevant fields
  • A strong publication record
  • Excellent command of English
  • Commitment to timely and thorough reviews

To apply as a reviewer, please contact us with your CV and areas of expertise.

Contact Us

For questions about the review process or to become a reviewer, please contact us at:

Email: admin@va-ra.co