Peer Review Process

Jurnal Ilmu Gizi dan Dietetik applies editorial screening and double-blind peer review to assess the scientific quality, originality, ethical compliance, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewer recommendations support editorial assessment. The final decision remains the responsibility of the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief, with consultation with the Editorial Board where necessary.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team first evaluates whether a manuscript:

Falls within the journal’s Focus and Scope.
Meets the Author Guidelines and manuscript preparation requirements.
Presents a clear research objective and an appropriate study design.
Demonstrates originality and a meaningful scientific contribution.
Includes relevant ethics information and required declarations.
Contains sufficiently complete text, tables, figures, references, and author information.

Manuscripts may be returned for technical correction or rejected before external review if they do not meet these requirements.

2. Originality and Similarity Assessment

Manuscripts are checked for appropriate citation, quotation, and originality using similarity-checking software in accordance with the journal’s Plagiarism Policy.

The journal applies a similarity threshold of less than 20%. Editors also examine the sources and nature of overlapping text. A similarity percentage alone does not establish whether plagiarism has occurred.

Concerns may result in a request for clarification or revision, rejection, or further assessment under the journal’s publication ethics procedures.

3. Double-Blind Review

The journal uses double-blind peer review. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and author identities are not disclosed to reviewers.

Identifying information, including author names and affiliations, is removed from the review copy before it is sent to reviewers. Identifying document properties should also be checked.

Complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed when a study or its authors can be identified from publicly available information.

4. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally evaluated by one to two qualified experts.

Reviewers are selected according to their subject knowledge, methodological expertise, independence, and ability to provide a constructive assessment. Reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and decline assignments when impartiality may be compromised.

Additional or replacement reviewers may be invited when a reviewer is unavailable, recommendations differ substantially, or specialized expertise is required.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess:

Relevance to the journal’s scope.
Originality and significance of the research.
Clarity of the objectives and research rationale.
Appropriateness and reproducibility of the methods.
Accuracy of analyses and presentation of results.
Depth of discussion and acknowledgment of limitations.
Consistency between the evidence and conclusions.
Research ethics, references, language, tables, and figures.

Comments should be specific, respectful, and supported by scientific reasoning.

6. Editorial Decisions

The editor considers the manuscript and reviewer reports before issuing a decision:

Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to any remaining editorial corrections.

Revisions Required: The manuscript requires changes that the editor considers addressable without a new full review round. These may include scientific clarification or presentation improvements.

Resubmit for Review: Substantial revision is required, followed by further editorial assessment and, where appropriate, another review round. Revision does not guarantee acceptance.

Decline Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s scientific, ethical, or editorial requirements.

7. Revision and Reassessment

Authors must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each editorial and reviewer comment has been addressed. Any disagreement should be supported by a clear explanation and relevant evidence.

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the editor, returned to the original reviewers, or referred to additional reviewers. Further revisions may be requested before a final decision.

8. Confidentiality and Editorial Independence

Manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence are confidential. Unpublished information must not be used for personal or professional advantage.

Editors with relevant conflicts of interest must withdraw from handling the manuscript. Submissions authored by editorial board members must be handled independently.

Publication fees, institutional relationships, and sponsorship must not determine editorial decisions.

9. Processing Time

Processing time varies according to manuscript completeness, reviewer availability, the number of review rounds, and the responsiveness of authors.

Revision deadlines will be communicated with the editorial decision. Authors who need an extension should contact the editorial office before the deadline.