Peer Review Policy

Arsip Keilmuan Gizi (AKG) is committed to maintaining high standards of scholarly publishing in the field of nutrition and related health sciences through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. AKG employs a double-blind peer review system to ensure that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous, promoting objectivity and minimizing potential bias throughout the editorial process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editorial Board, including the Editor-in-Chief or designated Handling Editor. The initial screening evaluates:

Alignment with AKG's focus and scope.
Compliance with the journal's author guidelines and publication ethics.
Originality, scientific relevance, and clarity of presentation.
Completeness of the manuscript and required submission documents.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's fundamental requirements, are outside the journal's scope, or have serious ethical or technical deficiencies may be rejected without external peer review (desk rejection). Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned a unique Manuscript ID for further processing.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

AKG applies a double-blind (double-anonymous) peer review system:

The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers.
The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.

Authors are therefore required to remove identifying information from the manuscript file to maintain the confidentiality of the review process.

3. Reviewer Selection

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in nutrition, health sciences, or related fields. Reviewers are selected based on:

Relevant academic and professional expertise.
Expertise appropriate to the manuscript's subject matter.
Scholarly publication and research experience.
Peer review experience.
Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors.

If reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the Editor may appoint an additional reviewer to support a fair and informed editorial decision.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Originality and significance of the research.
Relevance to nutrition and related health sciences.
Appropriateness and rigor of the research design and methodology.
Adequacy of sampling procedures and data collection.
Appropriateness of statistical and analytical methods.
Compliance with research ethics and ethical approval requirements, where applicable.
Clarity and accuracy of results presentation.
Consistency between results, discussion, and conclusions.
Adequacy, accuracy, and currency of references.
Quality, clarity, and organization of the manuscript.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and scientifically sound evaluations. Reviewers must:

Complete the review within the specified timeframe.
Provide clear recommendations supported by appropriate comments and justification.
Maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript and the review process.
Disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest immediately.
Not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.
Report suspected plagiarism, research misconduct, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, or other ethical concerns to the Editor.

6. Timeline and Communication

Reviewers are generally given 2–4 weeks to complete and submit their review reports. Authors requested to revise their manuscripts are expected to submit the revised version within the timeframe specified by the Editor.

Communication regarding manuscript status, revision requirements, and editorial decisions is conducted through the journal's online submission system or official editorial communication channels.

7. Editorial Decision-Making

The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated Editor. Editorial decisions are based on:

Recommendations and comments from peer reviewers.
Scientific quality and originality of the manuscript.
Methodological rigor and validity.
Ethical compliance.
Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
Overall contribution to the scientific literature.

Reviewer recommendations are considered carefully but do not automatically determine the final editorial decision.

Reviewer Guidance

Peer reviewers play an important role in maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of articles published in Arsip Keilmuan Gizi (AKG). Reviewers are expected to follow internationally recognized principles of ethical peer review, including the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Core Principles

Objectivity: Reviews should focus on the scientific quality and content of the manuscript. Personal criticism, discriminatory comments, or inappropriate language must be avoided.
Confidentiality: Manuscripts and all information obtained during the review process must be treated as confidential.
Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should decline an assignment if they have a personal, professional, financial, or institutional conflict of interest with the authors or research.
Integrity: Reviewers should identify concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, or other forms of research misconduct.
Use of AI Tools: Reviewers must protect the confidentiality and intellectual property of submitted manuscripts. Unpublished manuscript content must not be uploaded to generative AI platforms or other external tools that may compromise manuscript confidentiality.

Structure of Review Comments

Reviewers are encouraged to structure their reports around the following areas:

General Assessment: Provide an overview of the manuscript's objectives, main findings, and scientific contribution.
Introduction: Assess the clarity of the research problem, rationale, and objectives.
Methods: Evaluate the research design, participants or samples, data collection procedures, analytical methods, and ethical considerations.
Results: Assess the accuracy, clarity, and completeness of the results.
Discussion: Evaluate whether the findings are appropriately interpreted and compared with relevant literature.
Conclusion: Assess whether the conclusions are consistent with the findings and research objectives.
References: Evaluate the relevance, adequacy, and currency of cited references.
Constructive Feedback: Provide specific and actionable recommendations to improve the manuscript.

Review Quality and Process Improvement

Arsip Keilmuan Gizi (AKG) periodically evaluates the quality and timeliness of peer review to maintain a fair, rigorous, and efficient editorial process. Feedback from authors and reviewers is welcomed as part of the journal's continuous improvement in scholarly publishing.

For questions regarding the peer review process, authors and reviewers may contact the editorial team through the official journal email.