Guidelines for Peer Reviews

Content

1. PEER REVIEW AND EDITORIAL PROCEDURE
2. REVIEWERS’ PROFILE AND RESPONSIBILITIES
3. REVIEWERS’ BENEFITS
4. VOLUNTEER REVIEWERS
5. GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR FSAB REVIEWERS
6. GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS
    6.1. INVITATION TO REVIEW
    6.2. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
    6.3. DECLARATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY
    6.4. REVIEW REPORTS
    6.5. MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION AND RATING
            6.5.1. English Language Correction Service
            6.5.2. Publication Ethics and Reviewer Responsibilities
    6.6. OVERALL EVALUATION PROCESS

1. PEER REVIEW AND EDITORIAL PROCEDURE

The peer review process plays an important role for publication, guaranteeing that Food Science and Applied Biotechnology adheres to the highest quality standards for its papers. Every manuscript sent to our journals undergoes a rigorous and comprehensive review process conducted by specialists in the field.
Upon submission, the journal's Production Editor will conduct a technical pre-check of the manuscript. A concrete Sector’s Editor will be informed of the submission and asked to conduct an editorial pre-check and suggest reviewers. This Sector Editor has the authority to proceed with the peer review process, decline a manuscript, or ask for revisions prior to the review stage. After their evaluation, the peer review process could start, conducted by independent experts, and acquire a minimum of two review reports for each manuscript. If two reviewers are selected to evaluate an article and one does not respond within a specified period, the opinion of the active reviewer, along with input from the sector editor and the editor-in-chief, may be sufficient for making a decision on the manuscript. In this case, the active reviewer’s feedback will be prioritized, and the editorial team will determine the next steps based on this feedback, considering the overall evaluation and their own expertise. The final decision regarding the manuscript will be determined by the Editor-in-Chief, a Sector Editor, or a scientist with expertise in the specific area of the article. Accepted manuscripts undergo internal copy editing and English editing if needed. Further information regarding the review process is available here:
https://www.ijfsab.com/index.php/fsab/Peer_review_process
You can find a guide for the reviewers here: https://www.ijfsab.com/index.php/fsab/Guidelines-for-Peer-Reviews

2. REVIEWERS’ PROFILE AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The reviewer plays a crucial role in upholding the integrity of the academic record and carries significant responsibility in the peer review process. Each reviewer is expected to assess manuscripts in a timely, transparent, and ethical manner, adhering to the reviewer guidelines:
https://www.ijfsab.com/index.php/fsab/Guidelines-for-Peer-Reviews

To qualify as a reviewer, individuals must meet the following criteria:

Have no conflicts of interest with the authors.
Be unaffiliated with the authors' institution.
Have not co-authored publications with the authors in the past three years.
Hold a PhD.
Demonstrate relevant expertise and a strong publication record in the field (e.g., indexed in Scopus, Web of Science).
Be recognized scientists in the subject area of the manuscript.
Maintain an official academic affiliation.

Food Science and Applied Biotechnology is committed to maintaining a rigorous peer review process to ensure comprehensive manuscript evaluation. Reviewers who agree to assess a submission are expected to:

Possess the necessary expertise to assess the scientific merit of the manuscript.
Deliver high-quality review reports and actively participate throughout the peer review process.
Maintain professionalism and adhere to ethical standards.
If unable to complete a review, they should recommend qualified alternatives who meet the outlined criteria;

3. REVIEWERS’ BENEFITS

Reviewing can frequently be a neglected and unappreciated endeavor, even though it is essential. We are committed to acknowledging the contributions of each of our reviewers.
Assessing the submissions for Food Science and Applied Biotechnology journal offers several advantages:

When the reviewer have been done 4 peer reviews, Food Science and Applied Biotechnology offers a free publication;
After the publication of the issue or after the acceptance of the article, reviewers will be awarded a personalized certificate acknowledging their contributions;

4. VOLUNTEER REVIEWERS

Food Science and Applied Biotechnology journal is looking for volunteers to assist in the review of manuscripts. Members of Volunteer Reviewers have the opportunity to engage in the review process for manuscripts submitted to Food Science and Applied Biotechnology journal. In order to participate in this program, you need to meet the criteria specified in GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR FSAB REVIEWERS. To join this program, kindly submit your application here:
https://www.ijfsab.com/index.php/fsab/user/register

The Editorial Board will be informed and your application will undergo a thorough review by our internal team, who will assess whether your background aligns with the journal's scope and identify any potential ethical concerns. Upon successfully completing our internal review, your application will receive approval.

5. GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR FSAB REVIEWERS

At Food Science and Applied Biotechnology, we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of peer review by inviting qualified and dedicated reviewers. Our Reviewers seeks scholars with expertise in various fields who are passionate about advancing research and ensuring rigorous academic standards.

Why Join as a Food Science and Applied Biotechnology Reviewer?

Becoming a Food Science and Applied Biotechnology reviewer offers several benefits, including:

Academic Recognition: Gain visibility in your field and enhance your professional reputation.
Networking Opportunities: Connect with leading researchers and experts.
Contribution to Science: Play a crucial role in maintaining research integrity and quality.
Professional Development: Improve your critical evaluation and academic writing skills.

Eligibility Criteria (mentioned also in REVIEWERS’ PROFILE AND RESPONSIBILITIES)

To qualify as a Food Science and Applied Biotechnology reviewer, candidates have to:

Hold a PhD in a relevant field.
Demonstrate subject-matter expertise with a strong publication record (e.g., Scopus, ORCID).
Have no conflicts of interest with authors.
Not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors.
Have not co-authored publications with the authors in the past three years.
Maintain an official academic affiliation with a recognized institution.

How to Apply?

Interested candidates can apply by submitting their CV and publication details (email, ORCID, Scopus Author ID, and Web of Science Researcher ID) via email to editor.in.chief@ijfsab.com. Additionally, if you are interested, please register at this link: https://www.ijfsab.com/index.php/fsab/user/register

Applications are reviewed based on expertise, experience, and alignment with FSAB’s mission. You will be notified of the Editorial Board's decision via email.

6. GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

6.1. INVITATION TO REVIEW

Manuscripts submitted to Food Science and Applied Biotechnology undergo evaluation by a minimum of two experts, who may be volunteer reviewers, members of the Reviewer Board, members proposed in the Cover letter from the authors, or reviewers recommended by the academic editor during the initial assessment. Reviewers are requested to assess the manuscript's quality and to advise the external editor on whether it should be accepted, revised, or rejected.
We request that invited reviewers:

Promptly accept or decline invites based on the submission title and abstract;
Suggest alternative reviewers if they decline an invitation;
If unable to assess the article within the suggested timeline, request an extension for the deadline;

6.2. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Reviewers are requested to declare any possible conflicts of interest and to reach out to the journal's Editorial Office if they have any uncertainties regarding what may be considered a potential conflict of interest. Potential conflicts of interest could include (but are not restricted to):

The reviewer is associated with the same institution as one of the authors;
The reviewer has been a co-author, collaborator, joint grant holder, or has had any other academic connection with any of the authors in the last three years;
The reviewer has a personal connection, rivalry, or negative feelings towards any of the authors;
The reviewer could potentially benefit or suffer financially from the publication of the paper;
The reviewer has any other non-financial conflicts of interest (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial, or otherwise) with any of the authors.

It is essential for reviewers to point out any potential conflicts of interest that could be seen as bias towards or against the paper or its authors. It is important to understand that when reviewers are requested to evaluate a manuscript they have previously reviewed for a different journal, this situation does not constitute a conflict of interest. Reviewers are encouraged to inform the Editorial Office about any improvements made to the manuscript in comparison to the earlier version.

It is also advisable for reviewers to consult the relevant descriptions outlined in the section Publication Ethics - https://www.ijfsab.com/index.php/fsab/Ethics_and_malpractice_statements

6.3. DECLARATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY

The Food Science and Applied Biotechnology journal employs double-blind peer review processes. Further details can be found here:
https://www.ijfsab.com/index.php/fsab/Peer_review_process

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript's content, including the Abstract, until the article is published. Reviewers must take care to maintain anonymity from the authors, ensuring that their identity is not disclosed in comments or in the metadata of reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format. Reviewers are required to notify the Editorial Office if they desire for a colleague to take over the review process on their behalf (it is essential that reviewers consistently fulfill the criteria outlined in REVIEWERS’ PROFILE AND RESPONSIBILITIES

6.4. REVIEW REPORTS

The review report should be written in English. Below, we have provided some general instructions for your review report for your consideration.
It is essential to follow the guidelines:

Comprehensive Review: Please thoroughly review the entire manuscript and any supplementary materials, with a particular focus on the figures, tables, data, and methods presented. Ensure that all sections are carefully considered.
In-Depth Critique: Your review should provide a detailed evaluation of the manuscript, addressing the major concepts and specific sections. Identify key strengths and weaknesses and provide actionable feedback that will help the authors improve their work.
Constructive Comments: Offer detailed comments that will allow the authors to clearly understand and effectively address any concerns you raise. Your feedback should aim to guide the authors in improving the quality and clarity of their manuscript.
Avoid Self-Citations and Excessive Citations: Reviewers should refrain from suggesting the citation of their own work, that of close colleagues, or any other authors, unless it is clearly relevant and necessary for improving the manuscript. This includes not recommending the citation of the journal to which the manuscript is submitted unless it directly enhances the manuscript's quality.
Minimize Excessive Citations: Avoid recommending an excessive number of citations of your own work, the work of colleagues, or articles from the journal to which the manuscript has been submitted, as a means to increase citations or visibility. While references may be included when necessary, they should contribute meaningfully to the quality and depth of the manuscript.
Maintain a Constructive and Respectful Tone: Please ensure your review is balanced and focuses on providing constructive, helpful feedback to assist the authors in improving their work. Any abusive or disrespectful comments will not be accepted.
Prohibited Use of AI Tools: Reviewers must refrain from using AI tools or other large language models (LLMs) when preparing review reports. You are fully responsible for the content of your review, and the use of such tools may violate confidentiality, proprietary rights, and data privacy regulations.
While there may be limited circumstances in which the use of AI tools to improve grammar, spelling, structure, punctuation, or formatting is acceptable, any such use must be disclosed when submitting your review report.
Important: Do not upload any manuscripts, images, figures, tables, or related communications to GenAI tools, as doing so violates the confidentiality policy of the journal concerning peer review. If it is determined that AI tools were improperly used in preparing your review, your report will be discarded.

Reviewers are required to follow the structure outlined below:

Review Structure

Summary of the Paper:

Provide a brief, one-paragraph summary outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions, and strengths. This section should give an overview of the article’s key points, highlighting its significance and impact.

General Concept Comments:

For Research Articles:

Highlight areas of weakness such as:
Testability of the hypothesis.
Methodological inaccuracies or shortcomings.
Missing controls or experimental flaws.
Provide feedback on how well the authors present their findings, any gaps in their research, or areas that require clarification.

For Review Articles:

Comment on the completeness of the review topic
Assess the relevance of the review topic to the field.
Evaluate the identification of gaps in knowledge and whether these gaps are adequately addressed.
Review the appropriateness of the references used, ensuring they are current and relevant to the topic.

General Guidelines for Reviewing Research Articles

Does the manuscript present its ideas clearly, maintain relevance to the field, and follow a well-structured format?
Are the cited references recent (mostly within the last five years) and relevant? Does the manuscript contain an excessive number of self-citations?
Is the scientific foundation of the study sound, and does the experimental design appropriately test the proposed hypothesis?
Based on the methodology provided, are the results reproducible?
Are the figures, tables, images, and schemes suitable for presenting the data? Do they effectively convey information, and are they easy to interpret? Is the data analysis appropriately conducted and consistently applied throughout the manuscript? Please consider statistical analyses and database-sourced data in your assessment.
Do the conclusions align with the evidence and arguments presented?
Are the ethics statements and data availability statements adequate?

General Guidelines for Reviewing Review Articles

Is the review well-structured, comprehensive, and relevant to the field? Does it identify a gap in existing knowledge?
Has a similar review been published recently? If so, does this review provide new insights and remain valuable to the scientific community?
Are the cited references mostly recent (within the last five years) and relevant? Are any key references missing? Is there an excessive number of self-citations?
Are the arguments and conclusions well-supported by the references provided?
Are the figures, tables, images, and schemes appropriate? Do they effectively present the information, and are they easy to understand?

6.5. MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION AND RATING

When reviewing the manuscript, please assess the following key aspects:

Novelty: Does the manuscript present a well-defined and original research question? Do the findings contribute to advancing current knowledge in the field?
Scope: Is the study aligned with the journal’s aims and scope? (https://www.ijfsab.com/index.php/fsab/Aims_and_Scope)
Significance: Are the results meaningful and properly interpreted? Are all conclusions justified and supported by the data? Are hypotheses clearly distinguished as such?
Quality: Is the manuscript well-written and structured appropriately? Are the data and analyses presented clearly and effectively? Does it adhere to high standards in the presentation of results?
Scientific Soundness: Is the study well-designed and technically robust? Are the analyses conducted using rigorous methodologies? Is the data sufficient to support the conclusions? Are the methods, tools, software, and reagents described in enough detail for reproducibility? Is the raw data available and accurate where applicable?
Reader Interest: Are the conclusions relevant to the journal’s audience? Will the paper attract broad readership, or is it of interest to a more specialized group? (Please refer to the journal’s Aims and Scope for guidance- https://www.ijfsab.com/index.php/fsab/Aims_and_Scope )
Overall Merit: Does the study provide a meaningful contribution to the field? Does it address a significant research question with well-designed experiments? Does it present valuable findings, even if the results are negative?
English Language Quality: Is the manuscript written in clear and understandable English?

6.5.1. ENGLISH LANGUAGE CORRECTION SERVICE
The journal offers a professional English language correction service for articles submitted for publication.

Fee: €10 per standard page (1,800 characters), excluding VAT.
Payment: The fee is payable in its equivalent amount in Bulgarian leva (BGN).

6.5.2. PUBLICATION ETHICS AND REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITIES
Manuscripts must meet the highest ethical standards:

Submissions must present original research that has not been published or submitted elsewhere, even in part.
Any reused text or content must be properly cited.
All studies must adhere to widely accepted ethical research guidelines.

If you suspect scientific misconduct—such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or other unethical practices—please report it immediately to the journal’s editorial team

6.6. OVERALL EVALUATION PROCESS

The evaluation process at Food Science and Applied Biotechnology ensures a fair, rigorous, and transparent assessment of submitted manuscripts. Our peer review system maintains the highest academic standards while providing constructive feedback to authors.

1. Initial Screening

Manuscripts are checked for compliance with journal guidelines, originality, and relevance.
Submissions that do not meet the basic requirements (e.g., plagiarism, formatting issues and scope mismatch) may be rejected at this stage.

2. Peer Review Assignment

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to expert reviewers based on their subject expertise.
The journal employs double-blind peer review, depending on the circumstances.

3. Review and Feedback

Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, methodology, clarity, and contribution to the field. They provide detailed, constructive feedback and recommend one of the following decisions:

Accept in Present Form: The manuscript meets all publication standards and requires no further changes.
Accept after Minor Revisions: The manuscript is generally acceptable but requires minor revisions based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors will have 15 days to address these revisions. If additional time is needed, the authors can reach out to us at any time.
Reconsider after Major Revisions: The manuscript has potential but requires substantial revisions. Acceptance will depend on the quality of the revisions. Authors must provide a point-by-point response or a rebuttal for any comments they cannot address. A maximum of two major revision rounds is allowed, with a 20-day resubmission deadline. The revised version will be sent back to the reviewer for further evaluation. Again, when the authors need more time, they can contact to us at any time!
Reject: The manuscript has significant flaws, lacks originality, or does not meet the journal’s standards. No offer for resubmission will be made.

Note: Your recommendation is visible only to the journal editors, not to the authors. Any decision regarding revisions, acceptance, or rejection must be well justified

4. Author Revisions

Authors are given an opportunity to revise their manuscript based on reviewer feedback.
Revised submissions are re-evaluated, and in some cases, sent for an additional round of peer review.

5. Final Decision

The editorial board makes the final decision based on reviewer comments and the quality of revisions.
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting and publication.

This structured evaluation process ensures that only high-quality research is published in Food Science and Applied Biotechnology.

EDITORIAL AND PUBLISHING PROCESS DIAGRAMME can be found here:
https://www.ijfsab.com/index.php/fsab/about/aboutThisPublishingSystem