Peer Review Policy – Journal of Medical Food and Nutrition (JMN)

The Journal of Medical Food and Nutrition (JMN) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, integrity, and transparency in its publication process. All manuscripts submitted to JMN undergo a rigorous, double-blind peer review process to ensure accuracy, originality, and relevance.

​

Editorial decisions are made solely by the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial team based on scientific merit, originality, ethical integrity, and relevance to the journal’s scope. Editorial decisions are independent of the publisher, sponsors, advertisers, or any commercial interests.

​

1. Overview

• Double-Blind Review: The identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

• Number of Reviewers: Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field.

• Editorial Oversight: The Editor-in-Chief, with the assistance of Section Editors, makes the final decision based on reviewers’ reports and the journal’s editorial policies.

2. Peer Review Steps

​

Step 1 – Initial Editorial Assessment

• Upon submission, the Editorial Office screens manuscripts for scope, formatting compliance, plagiarism check (similarity index < 15%), and adherence to ethical standards.

• Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements may be returned to authors without external review.

• All submissions are screened using plagiarism-detection software before peer review. Similarity reports are evaluated by the editorial team in context; no manuscript is accepted or rejected solely on the basis of a similarity percentage. Manuscripts showing evidence of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical text recycling may be rejected or referred for further investigation in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Step 2 – Reviewer Selection

• Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, academic qualifications, and lack of conflicts of interest.

• Review invitations are sent with a clear timeline (usually 2–3 weeks for review completion).

• Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected on the basis of academic qualifications, research publications, reviewing experience, and the absence of conflicts of interest. When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the Editor may invite an additional independent reviewer.

• Reviewer Confidentiality and Use of AI Tools: Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents and must not share, distribute, or use unpublished material for personal or professional advantage. Manuscripts or their contents must not be uploaded to public or commercial generative AI systems unless expressly authorized by the journal. If AI-assisted tools are used for language support during review, reviewers must ensure confidentiality is fully protected and disclose such use to the handling editor.

Step 3 – Review Process

• Reviewers assess the manuscript for:

  • Originality and novelty

  • Scientific rigor and methodology

  • Ethical compliance

  • Clarity of writing and data presentation

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope

• Reviewers provide constructive feedback and recommend: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

Step 4 – Editorial Decision

• The Editor-in-Chief considers reviewer recommendations and makes a final decision.

• Authors receive detailed reviewer comments and guidance for revisions, if applicable.

Step 5 – Revision and Re-Review

• Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the same reviewers (when possible) to ensure all concerns are addressed.

• Reviewers are normally requested to submit their reports within 2–3 weeks. Minor revisions should ordinarily be returned within 14 days and major revisions within 30 days. Extensions may be granted upon reasonable request.

Step 6 – Final Acceptance and Proofing

• Once accepted, manuscripts are copyedited for grammar, style, and formatting.

• Authors review proofs before publication.

3. Review Ethics & Confidentiality

• Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents and must not share or discuss them without permission from the Editorial Office.

• Reviewers are required to declare any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.

4. Appeals and Complaints

• Authors may appeal editorial decisions by writing to the Editor-in-Chief, providing clear justification and evidence.

• Complaints about the review process will be investigated in line with COPE guidelines.

• Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision. Appeals must provide a detailed scientific justification. The appeal will be reviewed by an independent editor or additional reviewer, and a final decision will be communicated within a reasonable timeframe. Complaints regarding the peer review or editorial process may be submitted to the editorial office and will be handled confidentially and impartially.

5. Recognition of Reviewers

• JMN values the contribution of peer reviewers and may acknowledge them annually on the journal website (with their consent).

​

Every manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening to assess scope, originality, ethical compliance, and formatting.

Suitable manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers under a double-blind peer-review process.

Reviewers evaluate scientific quality, novelty, methodology, statistical analysis, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal.

Based on reviewer recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept

• Minor Revision

• Major Revision

• Reject

The average review time is approximately 4–6 weeks.

​​

Contact for Peer Review Queries:
Editorial Office – Journal of Medical Food and Nutrition
Email: jmn@ismnworld.org
Website: www.jmnworld.com