FTD Resources Publisher is the Publishing House of the Journal of Food Stability

Peer review  (Adapted from AJOL)

Peer review is an essential part of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer Reviewers need to recognize the importance of their role and commit to contributing high quality work to the process of publishing scholarly research.


Responsibilities of a Reviewer
Expected qualities from a Reviewer

Review guide

Please provide examples and evidence for responses, do not simply answer yes or no.

  1. Topic and content:
    1. Is the topic relevant for the journal?
    2. Is the content important to the field?
    3. Is the work original? (If not, please give references)
  2. Title:
  3. Does the title reflect the contents of the article?

  4. Abstract:
  5. To what extent does the abstract reflect aspects of the study: background, objectives, methods, results and conclusions? Does the abstract content previously undefined abbreviations?

  6. Introduction / Background:
  7. Is the study rationale adequately described?

  8. Objectives:
  9. Are the study objectives clearly stated and defined?

  10. Methodology:
    1. To what extent is the study design appropriate and adequate for the objectives?
    2. Is the sample size appropriate and adequately justified?
    3. Is the sampling technique appropriate and adequately described?
    4. How well are the methods and instruments of data collection described?
    5. How well are techniques to minimize bias/errors documented?
  11. Ethical Consideration:
  12. If there are issues related to ethics, are they adequately described? (For human studies, has ethical approval been obtained?)

  13. Analysis and results:
    1. Are the methods adequately described?
    2. Are the methods of data analysis appropriate?
    3. Do the results answer the research question?
    4. Are the results credible?
    5. Is statistical significance well documented (e.g. as confidence intervals or P-value)?
    6. Are the findings presented logically with appropriate displays and explanations?
  14. Discussion:
    1. How well are the key findings stated?
    2. To what extent have differences or similarities with other studies been discussed and reasons for these given?
    3. Are the findings discussed in the light of previous evidence?
    4. Are the implications of these findings clearly explained?
    5. Is the interpretation warranted by and sufficiently derived from and focused on the data and results?
  15. Conclusion(s):
  16. Do the results justify the conclusion(s)?

  17. References:
    1. Are the references appropriate and relevant?
    2. Are they up to date?
    3. Are there any obvious, important references that should have been included and have not been?
    4. Do the references follow the recommended style?
    5. Are there any errors?
  18. Writing:
    1. Is the paper clearly written?
    2. Is the paper presented logically (e.g. correct information in each section, logical flow of arguments)?
    3. Are there problems with the grammar / spelling / punctuation / language?
The Journal of Food Stability Review Process

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License