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 scientific quality, originality, integrity, and relevance through a rigorous, transparent, fair, and objective editorial evaluation process.

All submitted research manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening, originality and similarity assessment, and, when eligible, independent peer review before a final editorial 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, an authorized handling editor, or a Section Editor.

The preliminary assessment considers the following criteria:

Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope and Article Scope and Eligibility requirements.
Compliance with the Author Guidelines and official manuscript template.
Originality, scientific contribution, and research novelty.
Appropriateness of the research design, methodology, sampling, replication, and analytical approach, where applicable.
Clarity, organization, and quality of scientific writing.
Completeness of required manuscript sections and ethical declarations.
Compliance with research integrity and scholarly publishing standards.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic scientific, ethical, or editorial requirements may be returned for preliminary correction 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

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment undergo textual similarity screening using Turnitin before proceeding to external peer review.

Pro Food applies a maximum preliminary similarity threshold of 20%. Manuscripts are generally expected to have a Turnitin similarity index of 20% or lower.

The editorial team evaluates similarity reports by considering the nature, extent, and distribution of matched text, including properly cited sources, quotations, reference lists, standard methodological terminology, and other legitimate textual similarities.

A similarity score does not independently establish plagiarism or guarantee manuscript originality. Manuscripts with unacceptable textual overlap, unattributed material, duplicate publication, or other research integrity concerns may be returned for clarification, required to undergo revision, or rejected following editorial assessment.

Manuscripts exceeding the similarity threshold may be returned for revision or rejected, depending on the nature and severity of the identified similarities.

Compliance with the 20% threshold does not guarantee acceptance or exemption from further ethical evaluation.

3. Double-Anonymized Peer Review

Pro Food implements a double-anonymized peer review system to promote impartiality, objectivity, confidentiality, and fairness in manuscript evaluation.

Under this system:

The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers.
The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.
Authorized editors retain access to author and reviewer identities for editorial administration.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, and relevance rather than author identity or institutional affiliation.
Authors and reviewers must avoid disclosing identifying information during the review process.

For double-anonymized peer review, authors must submit an anonymized manuscript file for reviewers. Author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and other identifying information must be removed from the review file.

Complete author information must be provided separately through OJS submission metadata or an appropriate title page that is not shared with reviewers.

Authors should also remove identifying document metadata and avoid unnecessary self-identifying statements within the manuscript.

The editorial team makes reasonable efforts to preserve anonymity throughout the review process. However, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed when identities can be inferred from manuscript content, previously published research, or publicly available information.

4. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening and originality assessment are normally assigned to two independent reviewers with relevant scientific expertise and research experience.

Reviewers are selected based on:

Expertise in the relevant scientific discipline.
Academic qualifications and research experience.
Relevant scholarly publications and scientific contributions.
Independence from the authors and editorial decision-making process.
Absence of conflicts of interest that could compromise impartiality.
Ability to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations.

Reviewers must disclose potential competing interests before accepting a review assignment. Reviewers with conflicts that could compromise impartiality must decline the invitation.

When a reviewer declines, becomes unavailable, or fails to complete the assessment, the handling editor may appoint a replacement reviewer.

Additional expert reviews may be requested when necessary to resolve substantial methodological concerns, conflicting evaluations, or other scientific issues.

Reviewers are expected to complete their assessments using the journal's established review criteria and Article Evaluation Form.

5. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance to food science and technology.

The principal evaluation criteria include:

Originality and Novelty: The extent to which the research presents original findings, addresses a clearly identified research gap, and contributes meaningfully to scientific knowledge.
Relevance: The manuscript's alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope, particularly its scientific or technological contribution to food science and technology.
Introduction: The adequacy of the scientific background, relevant literature, research problem, novelty, and clarity of the research objectives.
Materials and Methods: The appropriateness, validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the research methods, including experimental design, controls, replication, sampling, analytical procedures, and statistical analysis, where applicable.
Results and Discussion: The accuracy and clarity of the findings, the appropriateness of data analysis and interpretation, the depth of scientific discussion, and comparison with relevant previous studies.
Conclusion: The extent to which the conclusions directly address the research objectives and are supported by the reported results.
References: The relevance, accuracy, quality, and currency of cited literature. Manuscripts must contain at least 15 references, with at least 80% consisting of primary research articles published in peer-reviewed journals within the last 10 years, formatted according to APA 7th edition.
Scientific Presentation: The organization, coherence, readability, academic language, and quality of tables, figures, equations, and other supporting materials.
Research and Publication Ethics: Compliance with research integrity standards, ethical approval, informed consent, originality, data accuracy, and disclosure of competing interests, where applicable.

Reviewers must provide clear, constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments that help authors improve the scientific quality and presentation of their manuscripts.

Reviewers must complete the Article Evaluation Form after evaluating the manuscript.

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 standards and requires no substantive revision.
Minor Revision: The manuscript is potentially suitable for publication but requires limited corrections, clarification, improvements in presentation, or minor scientific revisions.
Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvements in methodology, analysis, interpretation, discussion, or other important scientific aspects before further consideration.
Reject Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific or editorial standards, contains fundamental weaknesses, or falls outside the journal's scope.

These recommendations represent editorial assessment categories and are implemented through the corresponding options available in the OJS workflow.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not independently determine manuscript acceptance or rejection.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor based on reviewer reports, manuscript quality, ethical considerations, and compliance with the journal's editorial standards.

7. Manuscript Revision and Reassessment

When revisions are requested, authors must carefully and systematically address the comments and recommendations provided by reviewers and editors.

Authors are expected to submit:

A revised version of the manuscript.
A point-by-point response addressing each reviewer and editor comment.
A clear explanation of the changes made to the manuscript.
Appropriate scientific justification when a recommendation has not been adopted.

Authors should clearly identify substantial changes in the revised manuscript when requested by the handling editor.

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

For manuscripts requiring major revision, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned for further expert evaluation when necessary.

Authors must submit revisions within the deadline specified in the editorial decision letter. Requests for extensions should be communicated to the editorial office before the 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:

Scientific quality and originality.
Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.
Methodological validity and analytical rigor.
Significance and contribution of the findings.
Compliance with research and publication ethics.
Recommendations and scientific arguments provided by independent reviewers.
The quality and completeness of manuscript revisions, where applicable.

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the handling editor evaluates the scientific arguments and may seek additional clarification or independent expert assessment before reaching a decision.

Editors must maintain impartiality and avoid participating in decisions involving personal, professional, financial, or institutional conflicts of interest.

Manuscript acceptance is granted only when the submission satisfies the journal's scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements.

9. Review Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential scholarly documents throughout editorial evaluation and peer review.

Editors and reviewers must uphold the principles of confidentiality, scientific integrity, independence, objectivity, and professional conduct.

Reviewers must:

Maintain the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts and associated research data.
Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and constructively.
Disclose potential financial or non-financial competing interests.
Refrain from using unpublished information for personal, professional, or commercial advantage.
Avoid discriminatory, inappropriate, or personally directed comments.
Refrain from requesting unnecessary citations intended to increase citation counts.
Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, or other research integrity concerns to the handling editor.
Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or promptly notify the editor of anticipated delays.
Refrain from sharing manuscripts or review materials with unauthorized individuals or third parties.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding manuscripts under review unless explicitly authorized by the editorial team.

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

Reviewers must not delegate substantive scientific evaluation, methodological assessment, or reviewer recommendations to generative AI systems.

Peer review reports must represent the reviewer's own independent scientific judgment, expertise, and critical evaluation.

Any proposed use of AI-assisted tools in the review process must comply with the journal's confidentiality requirements and applicable editorial policies.

Editors remain fully responsible for editorial decisions and must not delegate final 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 duration may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the number of required assessments, and the need for additional scientific evaluation.

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

The four-week period is an editorial target rather than a guarantee of a final decision, manuscript acceptance, or publication.

Authors are encouraged to monitor their OJS accounts and registered email addresses for editorial correspondence.

12. Publication Ethics, Concerns, and Appeals

Pro Food is committed to maintaining scientific integrity, ethical publishing practices, and fairness throughout the editorial and peer review process.

Concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, research ethics, inappropriate reviewer conduct, conflicts of interest, or other publication integrity issues may be reported to the editorial office.

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a substantial procedural error, factual misunderstanding, or inappropriate editorial conduct may submit a reasoned request for reconsideration with supporting evidence.

Appeals are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or another qualified editor who is independent of the relevant conflict of interest.

A request for reconsideration does not guarantee reversal of the original editorial decision.

Suspected ethical violations are assessed in accordance with the journal's publication ethics 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, consistency, and continuous improvement of the peer review process.

Editorial records may include:

Manuscript submission and revision dates.
Reviewer invitations, assignments, and responses.
Reviewer reports and recommendations.
Editorial correspondence and decisions.
Revised manuscripts and author responses.
Relevant ethical declarations and supporting documentation.

All editorial records are managed subject to appropriate confidentiality requirements, access restrictions, and institutional data protection policies.

The journal does not guarantee manuscript acceptance. No article will be accepted solely on the basis of publication fees, author affiliation, institutional relationships, personal connections, or other non-academic considerations.

Editorial and publication decisions must be based on scientific merit, research integrity, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's academic scope.

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

Further Information

For additional information regarding manuscript preparation, submission, peer review, and publication ethics, 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