Instructions for Reviewers

The editors of the Asian-Australasian Journal of Food Safety and Security (AAJFSS) sincerely acknowledge the vital role of reviewers in maintaining the scientific quality, credibility, and integrity of the journal. Peer review is fundamental to scholarly publishing and ensures that published articles meet recognized standards of originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and practical relevance in the fields of food safety, food security, and public health nutrition. By accepting an invitation to review, experts contribute meaningfully to strengthening research that informs policy, industry practices, and global food systems.

Timeliness and Communication

Reviewers are requested to complete their evaluation within three weeks of accepting the review invitation. Timely submission of review reports is essential for ensuring an efficient editorial process and minimizing delays for authors. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, requires additional time, or wishes to decline the invitation, prompt communication with the editorial office of the AAJFSS at [email protected] or [email protected] is expected so that the manuscript may be reassigned or appropriate alternative arrangements can be made without unnecessary delay. All communications regarding the manuscript must remain confidential and should be conducted exclusively through the journal’s official editorial channels.

Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibility

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or discuss any part of the manuscript with others without prior authorization from the editors. The data, interpretations, and ideas presented in the manuscript must not be used for personal, academic, or professional advantage prior to publication. If reviewers identify potential ethical concerns—such as plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, or unethical research practices—they should notify the editor immediately with detailed and evidence-based comments.

Scope and Relevance

Before proceeding with a full review, reviewers should confirm that the manuscript aligns with the journal’s Aims and Scope, which encompass food microbiology, food hygiene, risk assessment, food processing systems, food packaging technology, public health nutrition, policy and regulatory issues, and economic, social, and technological dimensions of global food security. If the manuscript falls outside their expertise or the journal’s scope, reviewers are encouraged to decline the invitation promptly.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to provide a comprehensive, balanced, and objective assessment of the manuscript, considering the following aspects:

Ethical Compliance: Confirmation that appropriate ethical approvals, biosafety measures, and regulatory standards have been followed.
Scientific Validity: Evaluation of the accuracy, reliability, and methodological soundness of the study.
Originality and Significance: Assessment of the novelty of the research and its contribution to food safety, food security, or related public health issues.
Study Design and Methods: Determination of whether experimental procedures, sampling methods, analytical techniques, and controls are appropriate and adequately described.
Risk Assessment and Data Analysis: Verification that statistical analyses and risk assessment models (if applicable) are correctly applied and interpreted.
Data Presentation: Assessment of the clarity, relevance, and accuracy of tables, figures, and supplementary materials.
Interpretation and Conclusions: Evaluation of whether the conclusions are logically supported by the results presented.
Literature and Citations: Determination of whether references are current, relevant, and appropriately cited.
Structure and Language: Review of the manuscript’s organization, clarity of presentation, and quality of English language.
Relevance and Practical Impact: Consideration of the study’s implications for policy, industry, public health, or sustainable food systems.

Constructive and Professional Feedback

Reviewers are encouraged to provide fair, objective, and constructive comments aimed at improving the manuscript. Feedback should be clear, specific, and preferably numbered to facilitate the revision process. Criticism should be presented professionally and supported by scientific reasoning. Personal remarks, inappropriate language, or subjective opinions unrelated to the scientific merit of the manuscript must be avoided. When recommending revisions, reviewers are encouraged to distinguish between major concerns (those affecting scientific validity or interpretation) and minor issues (such as language corrections or formatting improvements).

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment, including financial interests, institutional affiliations, professional collaborations, or personal relationships with the authors. If a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation to ensure transparency and impartiality.

Recommendation to the Editor

Reviewers are required to submit their evaluation through the journal’s online review report submission system. The system provides separate sections for comments to the authors and confidential remarks to the editor. Comments intended for authors should focus on constructive suggestions to improve scientific quality, clarity, and presentation. Explicit statements regarding acceptance or rejection should not be included in the comments to authors. Publication recommendations (e.g., accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject) must be provided only in the confidential section accessible to the editorial team. The final decision regarding publication is made solely by the Editor-in-Chief or the designated editorial board member after careful consideration of the reviewers’ reports and the overall editorial evaluation.