Editor Guidelines
Comprehensive standards and best practices for editorial excellence at International Journal of Nutrition (IJN)
Your Role in Advancing Scientific Knowledge
As an editor, you maintain the integrity and quality of published research in nutrition science. These guidelines support your critical work in evaluating manuscripts, ensuring ethical standards, and fostering scientific rigor.
Editorial Commitment: We maintain rigorous peer review standards while providing constructive feedback to advance nutrition research worldwide. Your expertise directly impacts the quality of scientific discourse in our field.
Manuscript Evaluation Checklist
Use this comprehensive checklist when evaluating submissions to ensure consistent quality standards across all manuscripts.
1. Title Evaluation
Clarity & Precision: Title should be readily understood, concise, and directly related to content (maximum 30 words recommended)
Informativeness: Accurately reflects study methodology, population, and key findings without sensationalism
No Abbreviations: Avoid acronyms unless universally recognized in nutrition science
2. Abstract Assessment
Abstract Structure: Should follow structured format with clear sections. Word limit typically 250 words (negotiable for complex studies requiring additional context).
Hypothesis/Purpose: Clear statement in first paragraph, typically in final sentence
Methodology: Clearly identified and briefly described with key design elements
Results Summary: Includes essential data and statistics where necessary
Conclusions: Findings stated clearly with implications for practice or research
No Citations: Abstract should be self-contained without references
3. Introduction Quality
Problem Statement: Early introduction of general problem with clear context
Research Questions: Precisely stated questions to be answered
Hypothesis: Clear, concise, and testable hypothesis presented
Significance: Justification of research importance and contribution to field
Literature Review: Brief but comprehensive summary of relevant research
Citation Quality: Primary sources preferred; citations current and pertinent
Knowledge Gap: Clear identification of gap this research addresses
Operational Definitions: Pertinent terms clearly defined
4. Methods & Materials
Ethics Requirements: Human studies must have IRB approval and informed consent. Animal studies require ethics committee approval and adherence to care standards. Reject manuscripts lacking required approvals.
Subject Population: Clearly described with inclusion/exclusion criteria
Ethics Documentation: IRB approval for human subjects; animal care committee approval for animal studies
Informed Consent: Documentation of consent procedures for human participants
Animal Welfare: Compliance statement with NIH Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (or equivalent standards)
Sampling Method: Justified and appropriate for research question
Study Design: Appropriate to test hypothesis with proper controls
Variables: Unambiguously mentioned and clearly identified
Replicability: Sufficient detail for independent replication
Statistical Methods: Appropriate tests for design and data type (note if statistical consult needed)
Data Collection: Methods permit judgment of appropriateness and reliability
5. Results Evaluation
Organization: Clear, precise, and logically organized presentation
Completeness: Sufficient information to answer research questions
Statistical Reporting: Values, p-values, confidence intervals where applicable
Tables & Figures: Complete, easily understandable, properly labeled
No Duplication: Data presented either in table OR figure, not both
Statistical Relevance: Statistics directly address research hypothesis
Data Presentation Tip: If extensive descriptive data appears in both formats, suggest authors move detailed data to supplementary materials or appendix.
6. Discussion Quality
Clear Conclusions: Findings stated explicitly with appropriate confidence
Evidence Support: Substantial evidence supporting all conclusions
Hypothesis Revisited: Direct reference to original hypothesis/research questions
Implications: Discussion of findings' meaning and impact on practice or theory
Appropriate Generalization: Results generalized only to studied population (e.g., laboratory findings not overstated for clinical application)
Limitations: Honest discussion of study limitations, potential biases, and errors
Literature Integration: Relevant and reliable comparison with previous research
Future Directions: Appropriate suggestions for future research
7. Conclusion Section
Should appear as final paragraph(s) of discussion section. Summary paragraph may precede conclusion if manuscript complexity warrants it. Conclusion should:
- Synthesize key findings without repeating detailed results
- State practical implications clearly
- Connect back to original research problem
- Avoid introducing new information
8. Tables & Figures
Clarity: Results represented in clear, concise format with professional presentation
Quality: High-resolution figures (minimum 300 dpi) with legible text and labels
Appropriateness: Advanced 2D/3D formats where they enhance understanding
Integrity: No manipulation of images to misrepresent results
Captions: Complete, standalone captions that explain figure without text reference
Multimedia: Video clips acceptable if they strengthen evidence base (reasonable file size)
Reference Guidelines
References must be organized in journal style with primary sources (peer-reviewed journals) strongly preferred over secondary sources (textbooks). Manuscripts should contain significant references supporting discussion and methodology.
Expected Reference Counts by Manuscript Type
| Manuscript Type | Reference Range | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical Scientific | 20–30 | Focus on recent clinical research (last 5–10 years) |
| Laboratory Scientific | 20–30 | Include foundational methodology papers |
| Case Report | 3–10 | Emphasize similar cases and relevant guidelines |
| How-To/Methods | 3–10 | Technical references and validation studies |
| Review Article | 50–150 | Comprehensive literature synthesis required |
Reference Quality: These are general guidelines. Assess reference adequacy based on manuscript scope, novelty, and field maturity. Recent, peer-reviewed primary sources should dominate citation lists.
Review Process Standards
Form & Style Requirements
Clarity: Manuscript must be clearly written and easily understood
Organization: Logical structure with smooth transitions between sections
Scientific Tone: Impartial, unbiased, and appropriately academic
Author Guidelines Adherence: Follows journal formatting requirements (may be sent for revision if deviations are major)
Keywords: Appropriate keywords included for indexing (5–12 recommended; MeSH terms preferred)
Language Quality: Clear, grammatical English understandable to international readership
Editorial Decision Guidelines
Accept with Revisions
Most common outcome. Provide specific, line-referenced comments with both error identification and suggested corrections. Use subheadings to organize feedback clearly.
Most common outcome. Provide specific, line-referenced comments with both error identification and suggested corrections. Use subheadings to organize feedback clearly.
Reject Decisions
Out of Scope State clearly and suggest alternative journals if appropriate.
Language Issues Recommend professional language editing services if content has merit.
Methodological Flaws Explain fundamental issues preventing publication.
Out of Scope State clearly and suggest alternative journals if appropriate.
Language Issues Recommend professional language editing services if content has merit.
Methodological Flaws Explain fundamental issues preventing publication.
Review Best Practices:
- Note errors/comments with specific line numbers
- Provide constructive feedback with suggested corrections
- Multiple revision rounds are acceptable to achieve quality
- Impartial review is essential — focus on scientific merit
- Reject out-of-scope manuscripts promptly without full review
- Guide authors toward improvement when rejection is necessary
Ethical Obligations
Foundation of Editorial Ethics: These principles guide all editorial decisions and maintain the integrity of the peer review process. Adherence is mandatory for all editors.
- Unbiased Evaluation: Give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts, judging each on scientific merit without regard to author's race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation.
- Timely Review: Consider manuscripts with all reasonable speed and attention. Sole responsibility for acceptance or rejection rests with the editor. Manuscripts may be rejected without full review if inappropriate for journal scope.
- Confidentiality: Do not disclose manuscript information to anyone beyond those providing professional advice. After decision, may disclose titles and authors of accepted manuscripts only.
- Author Independence: Respect the intellectual independence of authors. Editorial suggestions should improve clarity and rigor, not impose personal preferences or interpretations.
- Conflict of Interest: Delegate editorial responsibility for any manuscript authored by yourself to another qualified editor. Author-editor consideration of own work constitutes conflict of interest.
- Intellectual Property: Do not use unpublished information or interpretations from submitted manuscripts in your own research without explicit author consent.
- Related Research: When manuscript is closely related to your own research, creating potential conflict, arrange for independent editorial responsibility.
- Error Correction: If presented with convincing evidence of errors in published work, facilitate publication of appropriate correction, erratum, or retraction as warranted.
- Reviewer Exclusion: Honor author requests to exclude specific reviewers when reasonable justification exists.
- Review Format: Send PDF rather than editable files (Word, etc.) to reviewers. Request that comments be provided separately, not marked directly on manuscript copy.
Additional Ethical Considerations:
- Maintain transparency in editorial decisions
- Declare any potential conflicts of interest
- Follow COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines
- Report suspected misconduct appropriately
- Maintain confidentiality of peer review process
Language & Accessibility Standards
Adhere to high language quality standards. Manuscripts must be clearly written and understandable by international readers across diverse backgrounds. Consider:
- Clarity over Complexity: Prefer clear, direct language to unnecessarily complex terminology
- International Audience: Avoid region-specific idioms, colloquialisms, or cultural references
- Technical Precision: Nutrition science terminology should be accurate and standardized
- Language Editing: Suggest professional editing for manuscripts with strong science but poor English
Resources for Editors:
- COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
- ICMJE Recommendations for manuscript preparation
- Editorial training materials available upon request
- Statistical consultation available for complex analyses
