Introductions to Reviewers

This is a guideline for reviewers who participate in a journal's peer review process. All contents of the journal, including commissioned manuscripts, are subject to peer review.

Review Policy

Double-blind peer review

Food Science and Preservation adopts double-blind reviews so that reviewers and authors cannot identify each other's information. Peer review is used to ensure the highest possible quality in published manuscripts. Editors can exercise the privilege to decline a manuscript without peer review if it is determined that the article is outside the scope of the journal, is poorly written or formatted, fragmentary and marginally incremental, or lacking in significance.

All submitted manuscripts will be reviewed and processed by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned to one of our editors. The Editor has the following responsibilities for the assigned manuscript, such as selecting reviewers, monitoring the progress of the review process, evaluating the comments of reviewers before forwarding them to the corresponding author for his/her response regarding the ultimate acceptance or rejection, and carrying out a final check of accepted manuscripts for appropriate format and style.

Typically, two reviewers are selected per manuscript based on the subject matter, available expertise, and the editor's knowledge of the field. It is not necessary to decline a review invitation just because the author is an acquaintance or the same institution. However, the objective and sincere review of the submitted manuscript is required. The reviewers must review the submitted manuscript within the specified period and submit their opinions. However, the reviewer can request an extension of the review deadline, and if you do not submit a review opinion even after the extended review deadline, the reviewers can be dismissed.

Post-review work by the editorial office

Review opinions and editorial decisions may be analyzed by the editorial office without identifying the reviewers.

Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers are required to keep all details of the editorial and peer review process (including the authors' information) confidential for submitted manuscripts. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal purposes. Reviewers must not use the materials or data of the manuscript under review prior to publication.

Role of reviewers

The role of the peer reviewer is to advise editors on individual manuscripts for revision, acceptance, or rejection. Judgments must be objective and comments must be clear. The most important value of the journal is scientific soundness; therefore, logical and statistical analysis should be carefully considered. Reviewers must adhere to the review policy and reporting guidelines during the review process, and there should be no conflicts of interest. Reviewers should also point out related published works that have not yet been cited.

Reviewers are typically required to provide an assessment within 14 days. Anonymous copies of the review and the editor's decision, such as “accept”, “minor revision, major revision, or “reject” the manuscript, are sent to the corresponding author. Corresponding authors must resubmit the revised manuscript within one month and submit item-by-item responses to the opinions of the reviewers at the same time if the decision is “minor revision” or “major revision.” If the reviewers' evaluation of the manuscript does not match, or If the comments of the reviewers and editors are not satisfactorily revised by the authors, the editor may reject the manuscript or appoint additional reviewers to make a final decision. The corresponding authors can log into the journal website at any time to track the progress of their manuscript.

How to write review comments

After entering the e-submission system with your ID and password, please download the PDF file and attachments. Reviewers should be aware of individual biases and take them into account when reviewing manuscripts. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. The reviewer must articulate his/her opinions based on the supporting arguments and style guide.

◉ Comments to authors: Summarize your overall review outline on the manuscript in one sentence. And describe specific comments in the order of each section of the manuscript. Page marks are useful for tracking review comments. The reviewer's recommendation for acceptance or not should not be mentioned in the comments to authors. Consider whether peer-reviewed comments can improve the quality of the manuscript or the author's further research.

◉ Comments to editor: It is recommended to add both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Here you can add recommendations for the judges' decision, including special comments to the editor.

Reviewers should advise editors on appropriate decisions such as: (1) Accept (with or without editorial revisions); (2) Minor or major revisions: decision of the acceptance according to the revision by authors responded to the editors’ and/or reviewers’ comments, (3) Reject (typically due to the following reasons: lack of novelty, lack of conceptual advances, or major technical and/or interpretive problems). While the primary purpose of a review is to provide editors with the information they need to arrive at a decision, a review should also inform authors about how they can improve their papers to an acceptable level.

Competing interests

Reviewers should consult with editors before agreeing to review the submitted papers that have a potential conflict of interest due to competition, collaboration, or other relationships or connections with authors, companies, or institutions related to the manuscript. Selected reviewers must notify the editor and decline to participate in the review process if they feel that they are not qualified to review research results reported in the manuscript, or if they know that the review is not possible in due period.

How to become a reviewer

Reviewers are usually invited by the editorial office or recommended by authors. Those who wish to voluntarily act as a reviewer may contact the editorial office at https://www.kosfop.or.kr

Editorial Office
Food Science and Preservation
#1102 Global Plaza, 80 Daehak-ro, Buk-gu, Daegu 41566, Republic of Korea (S)
Email : kosfop@kosfop.or.kr; journal@kosfop.or.kr