The peer review policy of Carpathian Journal of Food Science and Technology states that NO manuscript should be rejected based on “lack of novelty” only, provided the manuscript is scientifically robust and technically sound.
Reviewers are kindly requested to follow the recommendations below in order to get acquainted with the complete guidelines for the peer review process.
Submitting a paper to the Carpathian Journal of Food Science and Technology implies that the authors have agreed on its content. Designate one author as the corresponding author for all publication-related communications. All correspondence and proofs will be sent to the corresponding author, who will serve as the final representative of all authors regarding any decisions related to the manuscript, unless otherwise specified during submission. This journal will not be held responsible for any disputes concerning authorship of a submitted paper. Any changes in authorship (such as adding or removing authors or altering the author list sequence) must be communicated to the editorial office in writing, signed by all authors, before the paper’s publication.
The peer-review process conducted by the Carpathian Journal of Food Science and Technology adheres to a strict double-blind peer-review policy to ensure unbiased evaluation. During this process, the identity of the authors and reviewers remains necessarily concealed.
High-quality manuscripts undergo a rigorous review process involving at least two researchers from the same field. To ensure anonymity, a blind peer review is employed, where the identities of authors and reviewers remain concealed from each other during the review phase.
To further guarantee transparency, all review comments, authors’ revisions, all manuscript versions, and editorial comments are meticulously recorded (along with the date) in the History Review file on the journal’s electronic platform and on a separate computer in the Co-editor’s possession, located outside the University premises.
To enhance transparency, the journal’s electronic system stores the details of all reviewers and academic editors. Access to this information is restricted to the Editor-in-Chief, Co-Editor, Production Editor, and one of the Sector Editors. This transparent process will contribute towards the elimination of any possible malicious / targeted interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc.) during the peer review procedure.
Any attempt by the authors to contact the evaluators directly to influence the evaluation process will be considered unacceptable. We also strongly disapprove of attempts by reviewers to contact authors directly. If there is suspicion, substantiated by evidence, of either of these two situations, the manuscript will be removed from publication.
The primary objectives of the peer review system is to “enhance the quality of the candidate’s manuscript.” We typically provide authors with information about the given by anonymous peer reviewers on the evaluated manuscripts, both during the initial peer review phase and at the final stage before the article’s publication. This approach aims to document the progress of article improvement throughout the peer review process. The reviewers by complete the review guide are asked to clearly and honestly identify the “strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.” This transparent process can have a long-term positive impact on the quality of the journal.
Carpathian Journal of Food Science and Technology realized before to start the review process a preliminary assessment of the manuscript. The assessment is realized by the relevant Sector Editor responsible with the current month. The Permanent Editor check the relevance of the manuscript with the aims and scope of journal publication policy. If the manuscript is considered within the scope of the journal, the manuscript will be sent to the Permanent Editor responsible with the current month. Each month of the year has allocated a Permanent Editor from the Journal Editor Board.
The Permanent Editor realized a preliminary evaluation of the manuscript technically and linguistically:
- It will be checking the English language quality.
- It will be checking the technical suitability of the submission and whether it adheres to the journal’s requirements.
All the submissions that fail the preliminary classification assessment are rejected. All the submissions that pass the preliminary classification assessment will be introduced in review process.
Permanent Editor selects scientist from the journal’s database or from global databases Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Elsevier, MDPI, etc., to act as potential external reviewer. Invitation is sent by the Permanent Editor to minimum of 5 distinguished experts into the scientific domain of the manuscript received by the address of the journal. All the invitation process is conducted by the manuscripts management platform https://opacj.org/carpathian-fst
The invited reviewers are kindly requested to respond to the review invitation as soon as possible. If a reviewer declines or the Editorial Board fails to obtain the consent of two reviewers within seven days, new, alternative external reviewers will be invited.
All manuscripts submitted undergo a rigorous review process involving at least two external reviewers. In cases where reviewers express significantly differing opinions, a third, highly skilled reviewer is brought in to facilitate a thorough discussion and consensus.
To ensure efficient and high-quality publication services, reviewers are encouraged to request a deadline extension if they require additional time to prepare their review. This flexibility helps maintain the quality of the published content while accommodating the reviewers’ needs.
The peer review suggested by the authors must not have a conflict of interest and must not:
a) be affiliated with the same department or institution as any of the authors. (If applicable, avoid the same university and country.);
b) have collaborated in scientific projects or manuscript published with the authors for the past 10 years;
c) have been a research guide or student of any of the authors for the past 10 years;
d) the editorial team has the exclusive right to decide whether or not to collaborate with the reviewers suggested by the authors.
Reviewer selection is a crucial factor in maintaining the high peer review standard of any journal. Throughout the peer reviewer selection process, several factors are considered, including proof of expertise in the field, such as publications in reputable journals, affiliation, and reputation. Reviewers who are slow, careless, or lack sufficient justification for their decisions, whether positive or negative, will be avoided at best. Authors can also identify peers they would rather not have as reviewers, and whenever possible, the editorial team will respect authors’ requests to exclude unsuitable reviewers. Additionally, the editorial team will diligently rule out reviewers with obvious competing interests.
The driving force behind a fast, efficient, and high-quality peer review process is the immense hard work of the peer reviewers and editors. We are deeply grateful to our peer reviewers and editors for their invaluable service.
Invited reviewers are kindly requested to provide a detailed and constructive review report that includes an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript. Please consider the following when writing your review:
- Provide a comprehensive analysis of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses.
- Offer constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement.
- Be specific and detailed in your recommendations.
- Consider the manuscript’s overall contribution to the field.
Reviewers should inform the journal’s Editor-in-Chief about any potential conflicts of interest that could affect the review report, whether positive or negative. The editorial office will conduct a preliminary check before inviting reviewers, but their cooperation is greatly appreciated. If a manuscript has been rejected by another journal after their evaluation process, this should not be considered a conflict of interest. In such cases, reviewers may feel free to inform the Editor-in-Chief if any improvements have been made in the previous version.
We kindly request that reviewers maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript abstract and content. If a reviewer asks a student or colleague to complete the review on their behalf, the editorial office must be informed. Also if the reviewer used the AI to complete the review need to inform the editorial office.
Our journal employs double-blind peer review, so reviewers must take precautions to prevent revealing their identity to authors through their comments or metadata submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format. Anyway, all the review reports provided to the editorial office are checked and removed any information about reviewers and will be anonymized.
Reviewers’ comments are typically sent to authors within four weeks of submission. Based on these comments, a final decision (accepted, accepted with minor revisions, accepted with major revisions, or rejected) is made and sent to the corresponding author. Reviewers are asked during review report if they would like to review a revised version of the manuscript. The editorial office may request a re-review, with the reviewer’s consent, to ensure a thorough and fair evaluation. Reviewers who provide opinions that differ from the final decision should not feel that their recommendation was not considered, or their service not appreciated. While experts often disagree, the editorial team’s task is to make the final decision.
Authors are encouraged to submit the revised manuscript within 30 days of receiving the reviewers’ comments (in the case of minor revisions). The revised manuscript should not exceed 8 weeks (in the case of major revisions, which may involve additional experiments, analyses, etc.). Alongside the corrected manuscript, authors must submit a review comment form indicating whether they conformed or disagreed with any comments made by the reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief retains the sole authority to make the final decision of acceptance or rejection from publication in any dispute.
The peer review process concludes in the initial stage when the Editorial Board receives positive review reports from at least two independent external reviewers.
If the manuscript requires unsatisfactory revisions and additional improvements, the review process can proceed to a second, third, or even fourth stage, culminating at the end with acceptance or rejection.
Reviewers invited to evaluate for Carpathian Journal of Food Science and Technology please fill in a review form Reviewer Guide Report with a number of section where they can comment for each section of the manuscript (Introduction, Material and Methods, Results and Discussion and Conclusion). At the end reviewers are provided with the chance to present their specific comments. They can specify the row numbers, tables, figures, and other relevant elements. Additionally, they can make any other notes, suggestions. There are 2 section where the reviewers need to fill them recommendation, a section for the authors and a section for the editors.
Reviewers need to opt for one of the next variants:
Acceptance in current form: the paper will be published without any correction.
Acceptance after a minor correction: authors need to answer to the reviewer comments and questions and make a minor revision.
Acceptance after a major correction: when the comments of the reviewers refer on the big part of the manuscript. The authors need to answer to the comments and depends by the ability to provide the information the manuscript could be published or rejected.
Rejection: when an article is rejected for publication due to significant flaws or lack of originality, no further submissions to the journal will be recommended.
Manuscripts accepted for publication will be pass directly to the Production Section of the platform for manuscript management.
The review process will be no longer than 30 days. After 30 days the authors received the first reviewers decision
This journal publishes original, high-quality research works. Submitting a manuscript to this journal implies that the study hasn’t been published elsewhere or submitted for publication elsewhere. If the authors have used any part of a published paper (in English or any other language), they must provide proper references or obtain permission from the previous publisher or copyright holder, whichever is applicable.
The Academic Publishing House of the Technical University of Cluj-Napoca strives for an ethical publishing process. The results reported in the submitted manuscript should only be published in this journal and not have been previously published, even in part. Reusing text from other sources must also be cited appropriately.
The biological research included in the submitted manuscript must be approved by the institutional ethics committee and conducted in accordance with generally accepted standards for ethical research.
In the event of any breach of scientific integrity, fraud, plagiarism, or other unethical conduct, reviewers are kindly requested to notify the Editor-in-Chief immediately.
The Academic Publishing House of the Technical University of Cluj-Napoca strongly condemns the practice of duplicating publications or any form of plagiarism. If anyone suspects any unethical conduct in the reviewed manuscript, they must report it in the report, providing the necessary proof or web links.
Studies conducted to confirm or replicate the results of previously published papers using a new dataset may be considered for publication. However, these studies must clearly state this fact.
Plagiarized manuscripts will not be published. If any indication of plagiarism is found in an already published article, the editors will promptly send letters to all authors, their affiliated institutions, and funding agencies. Consequently, the paper will be retracted.
Duplicate publication, sometimes called self-plagiarism, occurs when an author reuses substantial parts of his or her own published work without providing the appropriate references. This can range from getting an identical paper published in multiple journals to 'salami-slicing' where authors add small amounts of new data to a previous paper. Self-plagiarism, also referred to as ‘text recycling’, is a topical issue and is currently generating much discussion among editors. Opinions are divided as to how much text overlap with an author’s own previous publications is acceptable. We normally follow the guidelines given in COPE website. Editors, reviewers and authors are also requested to strictly follow this excellent guideline Reference: Text Recycling Guidelines