Editor will choose a peer-review model that best suits the journal and community.

• The Journal had clearly defined and communicated policies on the type of peer review model used, which is single-blinded.
• Original manuscripts, review articles, and meta-analysis will peer reviewed, while letters to editor will not peer reviewed.
• The Journal will operate a triage process in which submissions that are out of scope or otherwise inappropriate may be rejected or returned to the author without external peer review.
• The journal may publish special issues or supplements, and peer review may be managed by a guest editor.
• MNF Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics editor will ensure confidential handling of manuscripts, with no details being disclosed to anyone except the editorial board. If discussions between an author, editor, and peer reviewer have taken place in confidence they will remain in confidence unless explicit consent has been given by all parties, or unless there are exceptional circumstances (for example, when they might help substantiate claims of intellectual property theft during peer review).
• MNF Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics editor will ask peer reviewers to disclose any conflicts of interest when they respond to an invitation to review and also when they submit their review. Editor will ask that reviewers decline invitations where circumstances might prevent them writing an unbiased review. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include when they have collaborated with the authors recently, when they are based in the same institution as the authors, when they are in direct competition with the authors, when they have personal conflict or close personal relationship or association with the authors, or when they have a financial interest in the manuscript.
• Editor will request that invited peer reviewers inform them if they delegate peer review.

For creating an efficient, effective peer-review process, the editor will:

• Establish and maintain a secure database of suitably qualified peer reviewers (Regardless of Position or Academic Degree) that is compliant with data protection legislation.
• Monitor the performance of peer reviewers for quality and timeliness. Peer reviewers who repeatedly produce poor quality, tardy, abusive, or unconstructive reviews should not be used again (twice or more).
• MNF Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics will ask authors to nominate peer reviewers or to request that particular individuals do not peer review their paper. Editor will remind authors that they should avoid nominating peer reviewers who have a conflict of interest. MNF Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics editor are under no obligation to accept the authors’ nominations and it is advisable to ensure at least one peer reviewer not suggested by the authors reviews the paper. Editors will always check the qualifications of all reviewers before issuing and invitation to review. Editor will use institutional email addresses when inviting reviewers and will request an ORCID from reviewers whenever possible, and may avoid using reviewers whose backgrounds and institutional affiliations cannot be determined by a simple web search.
• Aim to ensure timely peer review and publication and will avoid unnecessary delays and consider how best to share information with authors about any delays that occur.
• Give peer reviewers explicit guidance on their role and responsibilities and consider encouraging the use of reporting guidelines to check completeness of reporting in a systematic way.

Peer reviewers can play an important role in identifying potential questionable research practices such as possible data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, redundant or duplicate publication, image manipulation, unethical research, biased reporting, authorship abuse, and undeclared conflicts of interest.  Therefore, MNF Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics editor will remind peer reviewers of this role, and of their requirement to:

• Respect the confidentiality of peer review, and not discuss the manuscript or contact the authors or any other people about the manuscript.
• Declare any conflicts of interest.
• Provide an objective and constructive explanation for their recommendation.
• Not allow their decision on a manuscript to be influenced by its origin or authorship.
• Avoid requesting that the author cites the peer reviewer’s own papers, unless there is a strong scholarly rationale for this.
• Not reproduce information or any part of the manuscript under review in any of their own work prior to publication by the authors.
• Only agree to peer review manuscripts within their expertise and within a reasonable timeframe.
• Not delay publication.
• Not use insulting, hostile, or defamatory language.
• Destroy submitted manuscripts and all related material after they have reviewed them.