Contents

end

Minimum Requirements for manuscripts submission

Authors should know that there are fourteen minimal requirements expected of all manuscripts submitted to the Special Journal of Public Health, Nutrition and Dietetics [SJ-PND], for review and consideration before publication

1. Editorial office pre-review to confirm manuscripts are within the scope of listed journals and are in strict conformity with the writing style, quality, accuracy, and novelty recommended by the scientific and technical advisory committee (STAC) for all our journals. This can be completed with 48hours.
2. Authors are advised to read the details of the article processing charge found in this section as submission of articles will be taken to mean that section seen here…. was read and the authors agree to the terms and conditions
3. While filling the form to submit papers only, authors are encouraged to select one of our waiver terms for the manuscript before the manuscripts are submitted
4. We send the manuscripts to a minimum of three professional peer reviewers for their independent and unbiased judgment regarding the suitability of manuscripts for publication in any of our journals. This can last for 2 weeks depending on the response of reviewers?
5. Authors are given the chance to respond to reviewers’ concerns and answer the reviewer’s questions about their manuscripts. This can last for 1 week
6. The editorial board makes the final decision about the manuscripts’ status. At this point, authors will be allowed to pay the article processing charge according to the selected waiver conditions before submission of articles. as seen here … 
7. All accepted manuscripts will undergo an editorial upgrade, copy editing, galley proof preparation for author’s approval, plagiarism check, grammar assessment for novelty and quality. Online publication can take place within 2 days after galley proof correction is received from authors and approved by the editorial board.
8. Rejected manuscripts are sent back to the corresponding author(s) for upgrade according to reviewers’ comments. Duration for response is usually 4 weeks minimum but if we do not get any feedback from such authors within 12 weeks we will assume the manuscript was withdrawn by the authors and we will delete such details from our database
9. Unless the reviewers recommend manuscripts should not be submitted again to the journal, authors of rejected papers can respond to authors’ comments, within a specified time, providing all information needed, and the rejected manuscripts can qualify for resubmission for a fresh peer review.

Editorial screening on quality of manuscripts processed for per review

1. Manuscripts must provide answers to unanswered public health, Nutrition and Dietetics, and other relevant questions
2.  There must be clearly descriptive innovative ways for early detection (Diagnostic), prevention (Vaccine), and control (management) of public health, Nutrition, and Dietetics,
3. Outlines the role of vectors in public health, Nutrition and Dietetics, disease transmission
4. Elucidates the science behind scientific observations that will ultimately improve current knowledge on diagnosis prevention and control of public health, Nutrition, and Dietetics, related diseases
5. Illuminates the molecular and phenotypic markers/predictors of public health, Nutrition and Dietetics, related diseases, and how to generate  knowledge that will lead to effective forecast, prevention and control of public health, Nutrition and Dietetics,  related diseases
6. Explains diagnostic approaches leading to better prevention and control of public health, Nutrition and Dietetics,  related disease
7. Highlights modern approaches in the use of therapies for prevention and control public health, Nutrition and Dietetics,  related diseases

 Authors notes on our peer review process

Authors should note that all manuscripts must undergo a double-blinded peer-review process by a minimum of three expert professionals, two of whom must recommend the acceptance of any paper before being considered for publication. This journal uses a double–blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are hidden from the reviewers, and authors, throughout the review process. This is so to avoid bias and conflict of interest.

Details of 4 WEEKS paper processing protocol BEFORE ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION

1. Submission, receipt, acknowledgment, and sorting at the editorial office = one (1) day
2. Peer review and feedback from reviewers arrive editorial office = Seven (7) days
3. Revision by authors and receipt of feedback from authors at the editorial office  = Seven (7) days
4. The editorial office prepares feedback for Editor in chief attention – One (1) day
5. Editorial committee meets to make a decision based on peer review policy = One (1)day
6a. Galley proof of accepted papers prepared and sent to authors perusal and approval = Five (5) days
6b. Rejected papers sent to authors with the option of working with our Manuscript development team to upgrade the rejected paper for resubmission and reassessment (feedback from authors must be received in 5 days or we assume authors have no interest or have withdrawn their rejected papers from our offer to help)
7. Accepted manuscripts whose galley proof has been approved by the authors including the signed copyright consent form arrive at the Editorial Office and are sent directly to the media and publication department for final copy editing = One (1) day
8. Media and Publication team at this point works hard to ensure manuscripts are published on our website = Three (3) days

Rejected papers

Nevertheless, if reviewers or authors still have reason to challenge the suggestions for which papers were rejected, an official complaint must be lodged to the editorial office. This complaint will be sent to other expert professionals for unbiased advice. The identities of these external professional advisers will not be revealed in line with our ethics policies.  To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity.

Based on the advice of two or more expert reviewers, the Editorial Board may reject a paper. These rejected papers are rapidly returned to the manuscript authors, usually within three weeks. Papers can also be returned within 48hrs back to authors if the editorial office can confirm that manuscripts were not prepared according to our format

Manuscripts sent to this journal should be according to our style. Original observations including new findings can be submitted for consideration.

Language

The document should be written in English, French, Chinese, or Spanish in clear and direct terms. The final submitted document will be translated to English before it is sent to the external peer reviewers. Authors may authorize us to include some French, Spanish, or Chinese Abstracts together with the English version. This will be done for free. Pages must be numbered successively, and all manuscripts must follow the Vancouver style.

Click here to see details

Manuscript format:

Manuscripts for full-length papers should contain the following sections;

1. Covering letter
2. Title page
3. Abstract
4. Text organization
5. List of abbreviations
6. Conflict of interest
7. Acknowledgments
8. References
9. Appendixes
10. Figures/illustrations
11. Chemical structures
12. Tables and captions
13. Supportive/supplementary material

References:

References must be listed in the numerical system (Vancouver, click here to see the link for details). All references should be numbered sequentially [in square brackets] in the text and listed in the same numerical order in the reference section (Click here for details). The reference numbers must be finalized and the bibliography must be fully formatted before submission (Click here for details).

Plagiarism

Rejections of papers sent to this journal due to plagiarism occur when authors add someone’s work or research as part of their work without full permission, acknowledgment, reference, or due citation. In most cases, it may be unintentional or intentional but such an act is largely frowned at by publishers and stakeholders as it speaks volumes regarding what type of information stakeholders wants from the database.

The awareness and campaign against plagiarism including so many free user-friendly software are so magnanimous that intentional plagiarism may have declined. Plagiarism is a dent in the novelty and quality of manuscripts and authors usually have the chance to defend or explain it.