Editorial Workflow

Guide to Referees

Peer review
Food Therapy and Health Care editors are greatly appreciated for the reviewers whose thoughtful comments and critiques are essential to improve the quality of the articles. It is only by collaboration with our reviewers that editors can ensure that the manuscripts we publish are among the most important in their scientific field. We will inquire potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. Reviewers should notice that these messages contain confidential information, which should be keep secret.

General information
Food Therapy and Health Care provides forums for the rapid dissemination of significant novel and high impact research in the medical functions and biomedical effects of food and nutrition. The journal only publishes novel, high quality and high impact review papers, original research papers and letters to the editors, in the various disciplines encompassing the science and technology of food. It is journal policy to publish special issues on topical and emergent subjects of food research or food research-related areas. 

Criteria for publication
To be published in Food Therapy and Health Care, a paper should meet the general criteria:
Relevant to the medical functions and biomedical effects of food.
Provides strong evidence for its conclusions. 
Novel (Especially from multidisciplinary perspective). 
The medical functions and biomedical effects of food and nutrition

Interesting to researchers in all related disciplines. 

Food Therapy and Health Care focuses on the following areas:

1. Functional foods (such as fungi and their extracts, ginseng, etc.)

2. Medicine food homology

3. Vitamins, minerals, botanicals and other dietary supplements.

4. Intestinal micro-ecology, probiotics, prebiotics

5. Metabolic diseases (diabetes, fatty liver, hyperlipidemia)

6. Obesity

7. Disease diet (diabetes diet, liver disease diet, tumor diet, etc.)

8. Nutrition (nutrition, cachexia, overnutrition, enteral nutrition, parenteral nutrition)

9. Vegetarian, apastia, eating disorders

10. Digestive malabsorption

11. Nutritional interventions in preventing disease

12. Nutritional interventions for different constitutional types

13. Diseases of food taboos

14. Safety/Toxicology of functional foods and dietary supplements

15. Qigong, meditation, exercise and other health care and anti-aging methods

The review process
Only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review, typically to two or three reviewers. The editors then decide based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities:
1. Accept, with or without editorial revisions 
2. Revise their manuscript to be acceptable for publication before a final decision is reached, including major revision and minor revision.
3. Reject temporarily and permit resubmission 
4. Reject outright, no more resubmission.

Writing the review
We ask reviewers the following questions, to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:
  Key results: Please indicate what you consider to be the outstanding features of the article. Is it related to human life or life science?
  Validity: Does the manuscript have weaknesses which should prohibit its publication? If so, please provide details.
  Significance: If the conclusions are not original, please provide relevant references. On a more subjective note, do you feel that the results presented are of immediate interest to many people in the relevant fields?
  Methodology: Please comment on the validity of the approach, quality of the data and quality of presentation. Please note that we expect our reviewers to review the quality and presentation of the figures as well as the validity of the statistical methods used to interpret them, including supplementary information. Is the reporting of data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent to enable reproducing the results?
  Statistics analyze: All error bars should be defined in the corresponding figure legends; please comment if that’s not the case. Please include in your report a specific comment on the appropriateness of any statistical tests, and the accuracy of the description of any error bars and probability values.
  Conclusions: Do you find that the conclusions and data interpretation are valid and reliable? Please make a summary of the specific strengths and weaknesses of the overall result.
  Suggested improvements: Please list additional experiments or data that could help strengthening the work in a revision.
  References: Does this manuscript reference previous literature appropriately? In particular, when previously published work has undercut the novelty of the present findings, it is extremely helpful to include in the body of the review detailed citation of the relevant articles and data.
  Clarity and context: Is the abstract clear, accessible? Are abstract, introduction and conclusions appropriate?
  Please indicate any particular part of the manuscript, data, or analyses that you feel is outside the scope of your expertise, or that you were unable to assess fully.
When declined manuscripts are transferred to another journal in the TMR portfolio the referee comments are also transferred, and can be used to determine suitability of publication at the receiving journal. In the case of manuscript transfers between TMR journals with in-house editors, referee identities are also transferred. Confidential comments to the editor are welcome by email.