Journal Metrics

Consistent, transparent publishing metrics help authors plan submissions and track impact. The following benchmarks are applied across the International Journal of Nutrition.

Journal At a Glance

International Journal of Nutrition is a peer reviewed, open access journal focused on clinical nutrition, public health nutrition, dietary assessment, and food science. The journal emphasizes transparent methods, data availability, and rapid dissemination for real world impact.

• ISSN: 2379-7835
• Open access publishing model
• DOI assigned to every article
• Global readership and indexing distribution

Editorial Screening

Editors assess scope alignment, methodological quality, and ethical compliance before peer review begins. Manuscripts that fall outside the scope or lack required approvals may be returned without review.

Reviewer Selection

Select reviewers with subject expertise and no conflicts of interest. Aim for balanced perspectives across clinical, public health, and methodological expertise.

• Invite at least two qualified reviewers
• Confirm expertise and recent publications
• Avoid institutional or collaborative conflicts

Decision Criteria

Decisions should reflect scientific rigor, clarity, and relevance to nutrition research. Editors should summarize key reviewer points and provide actionable guidance for authors.

Decision Outcomes

IJN uses structured decision categories so authors understand the path forward.

• Accept: minor editorial adjustments only
• Minor revision: limited changes required
• Major revision: substantial changes required
• Reject: out of scope or methodologically unsound

Ethics and Confidentiality

Editors must maintain confidentiality and report any concerns about plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical compliance. The editorial office provides support for investigations.

Sensitive cases should be escalated promptly to protect the research record.

Communication Best Practices

Decision letters should be clear, respectful, and aligned with reviewer feedback. Highlight key revision priorities and provide reasonable timelines for resubmission.

When rejecting, provide a short rationale that helps authors improve future submissions.

Frequently Asked Questions