Preview

User

Not a user? Register with this site Forgot your password?

FOOD METAENGINEERING

Advanced search

Editorial Policies

Aim and Scope

The purpose of this online scientific journal is to contribute to the development of the information base and promote scientific achievements in the food industry, to develop food safety standards and strategies for food expertise.

The journal publishes original empirical research, review articles in the field of food science, short communications, opinion papers and pilot studies at the intersection of engineering, biological, and agricultural sciences, including:

  1. Agricultural and other food raw materials: quality and safety monitoring systems.
  2. Methodology and methods for modeling the composition, evaluating the quality of raw materials, and products of its processing.
  3. Technological principles and techniques of production and processing of raw materials in relation to the physical, chemical, and microbiological mechanisms of raw material transformation in the production of food, biologically active substances and food additives, and other industrial products.
  4. Technologies for processing agricultural and other raw materials into food, biologically active substances and food additives, and other industrial products of general and special purpose, including genomic, post-genomic, proteomic, digital, additive, DNA technologies, and others.
  5. Food physics, chemistry, and microbiology.
  6. Personalized nutrition: scientific foundations, technologies, and devices.
  7. Environmental aspects of food raw material production and processing.
  8. Processes and devices for the production and processing of food raw materials.

Principles of food waste processing (food products with completely or partially lost original consumer properties in the processes of their production, processing, use, or storage).

 

Section Policies

From the Editor
Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
Original Empirical Research
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Original Theoretical Research
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Scoping Review
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The editorial board implements two stages of review:

  1. Double-blind peer review.
  2. Post-publication open review.

In the first stage, all articles sent to the editorial board undergo the procedure of anonymous internal and external review. Articles are evaluated according to the following criteria: originality, scientific relevance, relevance of the selected research methods, interpretation of research results, bibliography.

Independent reviewers, who are recognized specialists in the subject of the reviewed materials, receive from the editorial board a list of criteria according to which the work is evaluated.

Reviewers are obliged to evaluate materials impartially and unbiasedly. Reviewers should inform the editorial board of all cases of conflict of interest arising in relation to the study, authors, or funding organizations.

Reviewers must follow the rules of confidentiality and not pass the manuscript or information about it to third parties.

Reviewers are obliged to draw attention to the absence in the evaluated article of references to relevant works.

In case of the author's disagreement with the results of the review, the work can be sent for the second round of review.

The second stage of the review (open review) is implemented after the article's publication in the journal. Any researcher working in the field of knowledge related to the published article can send a review of the article published in it to the editorial board for an indefinite period. Then, by agreement between the authors and the reviewer, the review can either be published in open access or stored in the editorial office of the journal. As a result of post-publication review, the authors have the right to make changes to the text of the article in response to the reviewers' recommendations (in this case, a second version of the article is published with a new doi assigned to it). If the author disagrees with the reviewers' comments, he provides them with a detailed response substantiating his position. The mentioned response can also be posted in open access or sent to the reviewers without its announcement to the readers of the journal.

 

Open Access Policy

This is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.

Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.

For more information please read BOAI statement.

 

 

Archiving

  • Russian State Library (RSL)
  • National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)

 

Peer-Review

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal "FOOD METAENGINEERING" undergo mandatory double-blind peer review (the reviewer does not know the authors of the manuscript, and the authors do not know the reviewers). Manuscripts are sent at least to two reviewers for evaluation.

The review of articles is carried out by members of the editorial council and editorial office, as well as invited reviewers who are leading experts in the relevant field of science in Russia and other countries. The decision to select a specific reviewer for the evaluation of an article is made by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Scientific Editor, and Head of the Editorial Office. The review period is 2 weeks, but it can be extended at the request of the reviewer.

Each reviewer has the right to refuse to review the manuscript in case of a clear conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. Based on the manuscript review, the reviewer provides recommendations on the further fate of the article (each reviewer's decision is justified):

  • The article is recommended for publication in its current form.
  • The article is recommended for publication after addressing the issues raised by the reviewer.
  • The article requires additional review by another specialist.
  • The article cannot be published in the journal.

If the review contains recommendations for revision and improvement of the article, the journal's editorial office sends the text of the review to the author, suggesting that they take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or argue against them with valid reasons (partially or completely). The revision of the article should not take more than 2 weeks from the moment the authors receive the email requesting the changes. The revised article is then resubmitted for re-review.

If authors refuse to revise the materials, they must inform the editorial office in writing of their decision to withdraw the article from publication. If the authors do not return the revised version within 3 weeks from the date of sending the review, even in the absence of information from the authors indicating their refusal to revise the article, the editorial office rejects it. In such situations, the authors are notified of the rejection of the manuscript due to the expiration of the revision deadline.

If there are irreconcilable conflicts between the author and the reviewers regarding the manuscript, the editorial board may send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief at the editorial council meeting.

The decision to reject the publication of a manuscript is made at the editorial council meeting in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article not recommended for publication by the editorial council is not accepted for reconsideration. The notification of rejection is sent to the author via email.

After the editorial council of the journal accepts a decision to approve an article for publication, the editorial office informs the author and specifies the publication deadlines.

Having a positive review is not sufficient grounds for the publication of an article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the Editor-in-Chief makes the decision.

Original reviews are kept at the journal's editorial office for 3 years.

Upon receiving a corresponding request, the editorial office of the journal sends copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.

 

Publishing Ethics

Journal "FOOD METAENGINEERING" adheres to internationally recognized rules governing ethical relationships among all participants in the publication process: authors, editors, reviewers, publisher, and founder.

The provisions listed in this section are based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Elsevier's Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Scholarly Publishing.

1. Introduction

1.1. Publication of materials in peer-reviewed journals is a tool for scientific communication and is intended to make a significant contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge. It is important to establish standards for future ethical conduct of all parties involved in the publication, namely authors, journal editors, reviewers, the publisher, and the scientific society for the journal "FOOD METAENGINEERING".

1.2. The publisher not only supports scientific communication and invests in this process but also takes responsibility for complying with all modern recommendations in the published work.

1.3. The publisher undertakes the obligation of strict supervision over scientific materials. The journal presents an unbiased report on the development of scientific thought and research, so we also recognize the responsibility for the proper presentation of these reports, particularly from an ethical perspective of publications, as outlined in this document.

2. Editor's Responsibilities

2.1. Publication Decision

The editor-in-chief of the scientific journal "FOOD METAENGINEERING" is responsible for making the decision to publish (in collaboration with the Editorial Office and Editorial Council). The validity of the submitted work and its scientific significance should always be the basis for the publication decision. The editor may be guided by the policy of the Editorial Board of the journal "FOOD METAENGINEERING," being constrained by relevant legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright, legality, and plagiarism.

2.2. Fairness

The editor-in-chief and the entire editorial council must evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, or political preferences of the authors.

2.3. Confidentiality

Editors and the Editorial Board of the journal "FOOD METAENGINEERING" are obligated to keep the information about the submitted manuscript confidential, except for the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other scientific consultants, and the publisher, unless necessary.

2.4. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest

2.4.1. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts should not be used in personal research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during the review process and related to potential advantages should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves from handling manuscripts (specifically, by requesting a co-editor, assistant editor, or collaborating with other members of the Editorial Board in the review process and decision-making) in case of conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other interactions and relationships with the authors, companies, and possibly other organizations related to the manuscript.

2.5. Oversight of Publications

An editor who provides convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions presented in a publication are erroneous should promptly notify the publisher and the editorial council for the timely implementation of changes, retraction of the publication, expression of concern, and other appropriate statements.

2.6. Involvement and Collaboration in Research

The editor, in collaboration with the publisher, takes adequate responsive measures in case of ethical claims related to reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures generally include interacting with the authors of the manuscript and substantiating the complaint or demand, but may also involve interactions with relevant organizations and research centers.

3. Reviewers' Responsibilities

3.1. Influence on Editorial Decisions

Reviewing helps the editor make a decision regarding publication and, through appropriate interaction with the authors, can also help the author improve the quality of their work. Reviewing is an essential link in formal scientific communication that determines its quality. The publisher shares the view that all scientists who strive to contribute to the development of scientific knowledge and possess the necessary competencies should engage in manuscript reviewing.

3.2. Promptness

Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review a manuscript or lacks sufficient time to promptly complete the review should notify the editor of the journal "FOOD METAENGINEERING" and request to be excluded from the review process for that particular manuscript.

3.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. This manuscript must not be made public or discussed with any individuals without authorization from the Editor.

3.4. Manuscript Requirements and Objectivity

Reviewers are obligated to provide an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and with supporting arguments.

3.5. Recognition of Primary Sources

Reviewers should identify significant published works relevant to the topic that are not included in the manuscript's bibliography. Any statement (observation, finding, or argument) previously published must be appropriately referenced in the manuscript. Reviewers should also draw the editor's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work within the reviewer's scientific competence.

3.6. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest

3.6.1. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts must not be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review process that are related to possible advantages must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

3.6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors, companies, or other organizations associated with the submitted work.

4. Authors' Responsibilities

4.1. Manuscript Requirements

4.1.1. Authors of manuscripts based on original research must provide accurate results of their work and an objective discussion of the research's significance. The data underlying the work should be presented without distortion and objectively. The manuscript should provide sufficient details and bibliographic references for the possible replication of the described research. False or knowingly erroneous statements are considered unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Review articles, as well as manuscripts of other genres of scientific communication, should also be accurate and objective, and the authors' viewpoint should be clearly stated.

4.2. Data Access and Storage

Authors may be requested by editors to provide raw data related to the manuscript for peer review. Authors should be prepared to provide open access to such information (according to the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases) if feasible, and in any case, be prepared to retain this data for an adequate period after publication.

4.3. Originality and Plagiarism

4.3.1. Authors should ensure that the manuscript submitted is entirely original, and in the case of using previously published articles or statements from other authors, they should provide appropriate bibliographic references by citing them in the text.

4.3.2. Plagiarism can exist in various forms, from presenting someone else's work as one's own to copying or paraphrasing substantial portions of others' works (without attribution) and claiming ownership of the results of others' research. Plagiarism in all forms (including self-plagiarism) constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

4.4. Multiple, Redundant, and Concurrent Publications

4.4.1. An author should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. Submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to multiple journals is considered unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

4.4.2. Publication of certain types of articles (e.g., production recommendations, translated articles) in more than one journal is, in some cases, ethical when certain conditions are met. Authors and editors of the involved journals should agree to the secondary publication, which must necessarily present the same data and interpretations as the primary published work. The bibliography of the primary work must be included in the secondary publication.

4.5. Recognition of Primary Sources I

t is essential to always acknowledge the contributions of others. Authors should reference publications that are relevant to the execution of the presented work. Data obtained privately, such as through conversation, correspondence, or discussions with third parties, should not be used or presented without clear written permission from the primary source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as manuscript evaluations or grant provisions, should not be used without explicit written permission from the Authors of the work related to the confidential sources.

4.6. Authorship of the Publication

4.6.1. Authors of a publication may only be individuals who have made a significant contribution to the conception of the work, its design, execution, or interpretation of the presented research. All those who have made significant contributions should be identified as Co-authors. In cases where research participants have made a substantial contribution in a specific direction of the research project, they should be recognized as contributors to that specific research. Completing an authorship contribution protocol is mandatory.

4.6.2. An author should ensure that all individuals who have made significant contributions to the research are represented as Co-authors and that those who have not participated in the research are not listed as Co-authors. All Co-authors must have seen and approved the final version of the work and agreed to its submission for publication.

4.7. Risks, as well as Human and Animal Subjects in Research

4.7.1. If the work involves the use of chemical products, procedures, or equipment that may pose any unusual risk, the author must clearly indicate this in the manuscript.

4.7.2. If the work involves the participation of animals or humans as research subjects, Authors must ensure that the manuscript states that all stages of the research comply with legislation and regulatory documents of research organizations and have been approved by the appropriate committees. The manuscript should clearly reflect that informed consent has been obtained from all individuals who participated as research subjects. It is always necessary to ensure the protection of privacy rights.

4.8. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest

4.8.1. All authors are obligated to disclose in their manuscripts any financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived to influence the results or conclusions presented in the work.

4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consulting, share ownership, honoraria, expert testimony, patent applications or registrations, grants, and other forms of financial support. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.

4.9. Substantial Errors in Published Works

In the event that authors discover substantial errors or inaccuracies in their published work, they must promptly notify the editorial office of the journal "FOOD METAENGINEERING" and work with the editorial office to retract the publication or correct the errors. If the editor or publisher receives information from a third party that the publication contains substantial errors, the author is obligated to retract the manuscript or correct the errors as quickly as possible.

5. Publisher's Responsibilities

5.1. The publisher must adhere to the principles and procedures that facilitate the fulfillment of ethical obligations by editors, reviewers, and authors of the journal "FOOD METAENGINEERING" in accordance with these requirements.

5.2. The publisher should provide support to the Editors of the journal "FOOD METAENGINEERING" in addressing claims regarding ethical aspects of published materials and assist in interacting with other journals and/or publishers if it contributes to fulfilling the editors' responsibilities.

5.3. The publisher should promote good research practices and implement industry standards to improve ethical recommendations, retraction procedures, and error correction.

5.4. The publisher should provide appropriate specialized legal support (opinions or consultations) when necessary.

 

 

Founder

All-Russian Dairy Research Institute

 

Author fees

Publication in the journal is free for authors.

The editorial office does not charge authors for the preparation, placement, and printing of materials.

Invited authors may receive an honorarium determined by the editorial office upon acceptance of their work for publication.

 

 

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

 

Plagiarism detection

The editorial office of the journal "FOOD METAENGINEERING" conduct a plagiarism check of the article using an Anti-plagiarism system. In case of detecting numerous instances of borrowing, the editorial office acts in accordance with the rules of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).

 

Preprint and Postprint Policy

During the article submission process, the author is required to confirm that the article has not been published or accepted for publication in any other scientific journal. When citing an article published in the journal "FOOD METAENGINEERING," the publisher requests including a link (the full URL of the material) to the official website of the journal.

Articles previously posted by the authors on personal or public websites not affiliated with other publishers are eligible for consideration.

 

Revenue Sources

The publication of the journal is funded by the resources of the founding organization and through sponsorship contributions, with no commercial interest or conflict of interest.



115093, Moscow, Lyusinovskaya street, 35, build. 7.

Processing of personal data
supported by NEICON (Elpub lab)