Peer Reviewer

Peer Review Process

Pro Food: Jurnal Ilmu dan Teknologi Pangan is a peer-reviewed, open-access scientific journal published by the Faculty of Food Technology and Agroindustry, University of Mataram, Indonesia. The journal is committed to maintaining the scientific quality, originality, integrity, and relevance of its published articles through a rigorous, transparent, and objective editorial evaluation process.

All submitted research manuscripts are subject to an initial editorial assessment, originality screening, and, when eligible, independent peer review before a final publication decision is made.

Pro Food employs a double-anonymized peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the peer review process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission through Open Journal Systems (OJS), each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief, a designated editor, or a section editor.

The preliminary evaluation considers the following criteria:

Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.
Compliance with the Author Guidelines and manuscript preparation requirements.
Originality, scientific contribution, and research novelty.
Appropriateness of the research design, methodology, and analytical approach.
Clarity of scientific writing and presentation.
Completeness of ethical declarations, where applicable.
Compliance with scholarly publishing and research integrity standards.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic editorial requirements may be returned to the authors for preliminary revision or rejected without external peer review (desk rejection).

Authors are encouraged to consult the Author Guidelines before submitting their manuscripts.

2. Originality and Similarity Screening

All manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are screened for textual similarity using Turnitin before entering the external peer review stage.

Pro Food applies a preliminary similarity screening threshold of 15% or lower, corresponding approximately to the journal's previous originality requirement of more than 85%.

The similarity report is evaluated by the editorial team, considering the nature and distribution of matched text, appropriate quotations, reference lists, standard methodological terminology, and properly acknowledged sources.

A similarity score does not independently establish the presence or absence of plagiarism. Manuscripts with unacceptable textual overlap, unattributed material, duplicate publication, or other potential integrity concerns may be returned for clarification or revision, or rejected following editorial assessment.

Compliance with the similarity threshold does not guarantee acceptance or exemption from further ethical evaluation.

3. Double-Anonymized Peer Review

Pro Food implements a double-anonymized peer review model to support impartiality, objectivity, and fairness in manuscript evaluation.

Under this system:

The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers.
The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.
Editors responsible for managing submissions have access to the identities required for editorial administration.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on scientific merit, methodological quality, originality, and relevance rather than the identity or institutional affiliation of the authors.
Authors and reviewers are expected to avoid disclosing identifying information during the review process.

Authors must prepare anonymized manuscript files for peer review. Identifying information, including author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and identifying document metadata, should be removed from files provided to reviewers.

The editorial team makes reasonable efforts to maintain anonymity throughout the review process. However, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed in every circumstance, particularly when an author's identity may be inferred from publicly available research or manuscript content.

4. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening and originality assessment are assigned to two independent reviewers with relevant academic qualifications, research expertise, and knowledge of the manuscript's subject area.

Reviewers are selected based on:

Expertise in the relevant scientific discipline.
Academic qualifications and research experience.
Relevant scholarly publications and research contributions.
Independence from the authors and the manuscript's editorial decision-making process.
Absence of conflicts of interest.
Ability to provide objective and timely scientific evaluations.

Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. A reviewer with a conflict that may compromise impartiality must decline the invitation.

When a reviewer declines, becomes unavailable, or fails to complete an assigned review, the handling editor may invite a replacement reviewer. Additional expert assessment may be requested when necessary to resolve substantive scientific concerns.

Reviewers are expected to provide independent evaluations using the journal's established manuscript review criteria and reviewer assessment form.

5. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess the scientific quality and contribution of submitted manuscripts according to the following criteria:

Originality and Novelty: The extent to which the research presents original findings and a meaningful contribution to existing scientific knowledge.
Relevance: The manuscript's alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope, particularly food science and technology and related applications.
Scientific Background: The adequacy of the literature review, identification of the research gap, and clarity of the research objectives.
Methodological Quality: The appropriateness, reliability, validity, and reproducibility of the research methods, including experimental design, controls, replication, sampling, and statistical analysis where applicable.
Results and Discussion: The accuracy and clarity of the findings, the appropriateness of data interpretation, and the relationship between the results and relevant scientific literature.
Conclusions: The consistency of the conclusions with the research objectives, findings, and available evidence.
References: The relevance, scientific quality, accuracy, and currency of the cited literature.
Scientific Presentation: The organization, coherence, academic language, readability, and quality of tables and figures.
Research and Publication Ethics: Compliance with ethical requirements, including appropriate research approval, informed consent, data integrity, originality, and disclosure of conflicts of interest where relevant.

Reviewers are expected to provide clear, constructive, evidence-based comments that assist authors in improving the scientific quality of their manuscripts.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

Following manuscript evaluation, reviewers submit their reports and recommendations to the handling editor through the journal's editorial management system.

Reviewer recommendations may include:

Accept Submission: The manuscript meets the journal's scientific and editorial requirements and requires no substantive revision.
Minor Revision: The manuscript is potentially suitable for publication but requires limited improvements in presentation, clarification, or scientific discussion.
Major Revision: Substantial improvements are required in methodology, analysis, interpretation, discussion, or other important aspects of the manuscript.
Reject Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific or editorial standards, contains fundamental weaknesses, or is unsuitable for publication.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor based on the review reports, the revised manuscript where applicable, and the journal's editorial standards.

7. Manuscript Revision and Reassessment

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to address the reviewers' and editors' comments carefully and systematically.

Authors should submit:

A revised version of the manuscript.
A point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.
A clear explanation when a particular suggestion has not been adopted, supported by appropriate scientific justification.

The handling editor evaluates the revised manuscript and the authors' responses to determine whether the requested improvements have been satisfactorily completed.

For manuscripts requiring major revision, the revised version may be returned to the original reviewers or referred for additional scientific assessment when necessary.

Authors are expected to submit revisions within the timeframe specified in the editorial decision letter. Requests for extensions should be communicated to the editorial office before the stated deadline.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance for publication.

8. Editorial Decision-Making

The final publication decision is the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized editor.

Editorial decisions are based on the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, significance, ethical compliance, and relevance of the manuscript, together with the recommendations of independent reviewers.

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor evaluates the scientific arguments presented and may seek additional clarification or expert assessment before reaching a final decision.

Editors must remain impartial and avoid involvement in decisions concerning manuscripts where they have personal, professional, financial, or institutional conflicts of interest.

Acceptance for publication is granted only when the manuscript satisfies the journal's scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements.

9. Review Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents during editorial assessment and peer review.

Editors and reviewers are expected to uphold the principles of confidentiality, integrity, independence, objectivity, and professional conduct.

Reviewers must:

Maintain the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts and associated research data.
Evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively.
Disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
Refrain from using unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.
Avoid discriminatory, inappropriate, or personally directed comments.
Refrain from recommending unnecessary citations intended to increase citation counts.
Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, or other research integrity concerns to the handling editor.
Complete their assessments within the agreed review period or promptly inform the editor of any anticipated delay.

The journal's peer review practices are informed by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

10. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

To protect the confidentiality and integrity of unpublished research, reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, review files, research data, or confidential editorial correspondence to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence (AI) platforms.

Reviewers must not use generative AI tools to perform substantive manuscript evaluation, produce scientific assessments, or generate reviewer recommendations. Peer review reports must reflect the reviewer's own independent academic judgment and expertise.

The editorial team retains full responsibility for editorial decisions and must not delegate scientific decision-making to automated AI systems.

11. Review Timeline

Pro Food aims to complete the initial external peer review process within approximately four weeks following reviewer assignment.

The actual review period may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the extent of required revisions, and the need for additional expert evaluation.

Authors will be informed of editorial decisions and revision requirements through the journal's editorial communication system.

The stated review period is an estimated target rather than a guarantee of a final editorial decision, manuscript acceptance, or publication.

12. Publication Ethics, Concerns, and Appeals

Pro Food is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly publication process.

Any concerns relating to plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, research ethics, conflicts of interest, or inappropriate peer review practices may be reported to the editorial office.

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a substantial procedural error or factual misunderstanding may submit a reasoned request for reconsideration, accompanied by supporting information.

Such requests are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or another qualified editor who is not involved in the relevant conflict of interest. Reconsideration does not guarantee reversal of the original editorial decision.

Suspected ethical violations are assessed in accordance with applicable journal policies and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

13. Transparency and Editorial Accountability

Pro Food maintains editorial records through its journal management system to support transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement of the peer review process.

These records may include manuscript submission dates, reviewer invitations and assignments, review reports, editorial correspondence, revised manuscripts, and editorial decisions, subject to appropriate access controls and confidentiality requirements.

The journal does not guarantee manuscript acceptance, and no article will be accepted solely on the basis of payment, author affiliation, institutional relationships, or other non-academic considerations.

The peer review process is intended to ensure that published articles meet the standards of scientific integrity and contribute meaningfully to the advancement of food science and technology.

Further Information

For further information regarding manuscript submission and editorial requirements, please consult the following resources:

Editorial Office
Pro Food: Jurnal Ilmu dan Teknologi Pangan
Faculty of Food Technology and Agroindustry
University of Mataram, Indonesia
Email: redaksi.profood@unram.ac.id