Peer Review Policy

World Nutrition Journal (WNJ) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process.

Type of Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted to World Nutrition Journal undergo double-blind peer review, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process to ensure objectivity and impartiality. Peer-review process should be based on Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) standards

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript is first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the Editorial Board to assess its suitability in terms of scope, originality, scientific quality, ethical compliance, and adherence to journal guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected at this stage without external review.

External Peer Review

Manuscripts passing the initial assessment are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts on the basis of:

• Scientific validity and methodological rigor

• Originality and significance of the work

• Ethical considerations and compliance

• Clarity of presentation and relevance to the journal’s scope

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the handling editor makes a recommendation. The final decision (acceptance, revision, or rejection) is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized Editorial Board member. Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments to support transparency and constructive improvement of their work.

Special Issues and Guest Editors

For Special Issues, Guest Editors oversee the peer review process and make preliminary recommendations based on reviewer reports. However, the Editor-in-Chief and/or permanent members of the Editorial Board retain full editorial oversight of all Special Issue content and may participate in or make final decisions when necessary to ensure consistency with the journal’s editorial standards and ethical policies.

Conflicts of Interest

All editors and reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest prior to handling or reviewing a manuscript. If a conflict exists, the individual will be recused from the review or decision-making process.

Ethical Oversight

Manuscripts involving human participants must include a statement confirming ethical approval by an appropriate ethics committee and informed consent, in accordance with international ethical standards. Ethical compliance is assessed during both editorial screening and peer review.

Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers may not share or use unpublished material for personal advantage.

---

Review Process :

1. Author submit the manuscript 
2. Editor Evaluation (some manuscript are rejected or returned before the review process) - 3-5 days
3. Peer review process - 4-6 weeks
4. Editor Decision 
5. Confirmation to the author