Series E: Food Technology

About this journal Editorial board Instructions to authors Guidelines for reviewers Abstracting/indexing Submissions Issues Informations
Articles in press
Vol. 20 (2016)
Vol. 19 (2015)
Vol. 18 (2014)
Vol. 17 (2013)
Vol. 16 (2012)
Vol. 15 (2011)
Vol. 14 (2010)
Vol. 13 (2009)
Vol. 12 (2008)
Vol. 11 (2007)
Vol. 10 (2006)
Vol. 9 (2005)
Vol. 8 (2004)
Vol. 7 (2003)
Vol. 6 (2002)
Vol. 5 (2001)
Vol. 4 (2000)
Vol. 3 (1999)
Vol. 2 (1998)
Vol. 1 (1997)

Guidance for Reviewers                                                                                                                                                    For authors as well

The review process involves sending papers to at least two experts for review.
The manuscript is confidential. Any communication with the author of the manuscript must be done through the Journal Editorial office (Technical Editor).
The referee provides advice to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision, together with members of the Editorial Advisory Board. We will normally pass on your comments (anonymously, of course) to the author.
The author and the reviewer are not known to each other unless otherwise requested by either party. In any case, such disclosure and communication is facilitated by the Editor-in-Chief.
Even if the paper is not accepted, the reviewers will make constructive comments that might help the author to improve the paper, or in preparing a fresh paper. For this reason, please give detailed comments (with references, where appropriate) that will help the Editorial Advisory Board to make a decision on the paper and the authors to improve it. Send detailed comments separately and make your recommendations and any confidential comments to the Editor-in-Chief on a covering letter, by electronic means.

 The broad aspects to be commented are:

 Focus                   The focus must be research and development linkages; is this the case here?

 Originality           Originality is our major criterion for case reports; Scientific reliability; Overall design of the study

                             The research is adequately described and the conditions defined

 Methods               Adequately and appropriate described?

 Results                 Relevant to problem posed? Credible; Well presented (including use of tables and figures)?

 Interpretation     Warranted by the data? Reasonable speculation? Is the message clear?
 and conclusions

 References           Up to date and relevant? Has the most current literature been used? Any glaring omissions? As per the journal requirements?

 Importance of      Suitability for the journal and overall recommendation; Appropriate for general readership or more appropriate for special journal? 
 the work               If not acceptable, how can the paper be made so?

 Other points          Ethical aspects

Authors are not obliged to make the changes suggested by the reviewers as long as they can justify their position.