The Journal Of Nutrition And Food Sciences

The Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences (J Nut Food Sci) is the official peer-reviewed publication of The Nutrition Society of Sri Lanka. The aims of The J Nut Food Sci are to provide a platform to publish research on nutrition and food science and to stimulate research across diverse areas of nutrition, food science and technology.

ISSN Number;

ISSN 2815-0155

The journal considers manuscripts for publication that focus on applied food and nutrition research which includes original manuscripts, review articles, short communications/case reports and case series across the nutritional and food sciences. Journal will initially be published twice a year online. The NSSL expects to index the journal in reputed indexes and publish in time online.

There is no article processing charge. The J Nut Food Sci will be published in English (American).

Article Categories

• Full length original research 
• Systematic reviews/Mini Reviews/Meta analyses 
• Short communication/Case reports/Case series

The journal welcomes manuscripts on the following main areas. 

• Nutritional biochemistry and metabolism
• Nutrigenomics
• Dietetics
• Community nutrition
• Sociology of nutrition
• Nutritional epidemiology
• Nutrition education
• Nutrition and disease management
• Functional foods, nutraceuticals and phytochemicals in nutrition and health
• Sports nutrition
• Body composition
• Food chemistry & composition analysis
• Food quality safety
• Food microbiology
• Food processing, preservation and packaging
• Food & nutrition security

Submissions to The Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences from various fields within nutrition and food sciences are encouraged, under the condition that they have not been previously published, submitted, or accepted elsewhere. Upon submission, the chief editors will carry out an initial evaluation to determine the suitability of the submission. If the manuscript fits the scope of the journal, the manuscript will be directed to peer reviewers. The editorial board will then consider the reviewers’ feedback to make a final decision on the manuscript.

Type of manuscripts

The journal welcomes submissions from different categories of articles.

1. Original manuscripts
2. Mini-reviews/Narrative reviews/Systematic reviews/ Meta-analyses – (3000-5000 words)
3. Short Reports (Short Communications) / Case Reports/Case Report Series (Less than 1000 words)
4. Letters to the editor

Research papers arising from quantitative or qualitative studies should contain the following.

• Title page: Title, names and affiliations of the authors, contact details of the corresponding author, word count, declaration of conflict of interest, funding and acknowledgment.
• Abstract: The structured abstract should not carry more than 300 words (Background and objectives, materials and methods, results and conclusions). Separation into paragraphs is not required.
• Keywords: 3-5 keywords should be included in the alphabetical order, according to the principle in MeSH (nlm.nih.gov/mesh/MBrowser.html). The first letter of the keyword should be written capitalized and the remaining letters lower cased and be placed according to the alphabetical order. The delimiters written with a semicolon (;).
• Text: maximum 3000 words except the abstract, tables, figures and references.
• Number of references: Maximum 30
• Introduction: Concise description of the current literature related to the research, relevance and purpose of the research supported by suitable Extensive literature reviews need to be avoided.
• Materials and Methods: Describe the study setting/ places where study was carried out, design, population, and selection of study sample (eligibility, inclusion/exclusion criteria) of the subjects/research participants, sampling plan, sample size, study period, chemicals and materials used. Explain adequately the data collection methods, tools and/or procedures to allow other researchers to reproduce with relevant references. Indicate statistical methods
• Results: Present the results in a logical sequence in the text, tables and illustrations/figures. When data are presented either in a tabular or graphical form, emphasize or summarize in the text only important observations. In the text, the repetition of the results which are presented in tables and figures needs to be.
• Discussion: Emphasize the new and important aspects of the study and the conclusions that follow from them as a summary. Do not repeat, in detail, data or other material given in the Introduction or Results include the implications of the findings, including those for future research. Discuss the limitations of the research. Relate the observations to those of other relevant studies.
• Conclusions: It needs to be focused and concise linking the goals of the Avoid unqualified statements which are not completely supported by your data. When appropriate, recommendations may be included.

Systematic  review/  Meta  analyses  manuscripts  should  include  the  following:  1.  an unstructured abstract of 300 words (without headings); 2. an introduction; 3. the methods, which describe the search strategy and selection criteria; 4. the body, which develops the subject in a logical order using appropriate subheadings and presents a balanced and critical review of the literature and, where relevant, balanced recommendations; 5. a statement about relevance to practice.

• Number of references: Maximum 50

Short reports include preliminary data that suggest the requirement of are search, quality improvement activities and their evaluation, evaluations of a program or service, brief surveys or additional data from work already published. Short reports should include the same subheadings as research articles.

• Case reports/ Case report series should illustrate useful new approaches to the nutritional assessment and management of an individual or situation or identify unexpected findings or offer new insight into human nutrition, dietetic practice, food science and technology. The acceptable case report has the following headings:

1. Introduction, which provides a summary of the background literature
2. Presentation of case (present the current nutritional problem of interest, clinical relevance in patient management, innovation of a functional food/ nutraceuticals)
3. Activities undertaken (e.g. a new therapeutic plan related methodology, process of the innovation)
4. Outcomes (summarize evaluation of the activity or patient outcomes
5. Discussion, which describes new learning and applications to nutrition, dietetics, food science and technology
6. Relevance to current practice.

• Number of references for both short reports and the case reports: Maximum 15

All manuscripts must be submitted via < nssljournal@gmail.com>

The J Nut Food Sci is freely available on the web. The manuscript checklist and copyright transfer form should be submitted along with the manuscript. The copyright transfer form should include the names and signatures of all authors. The checklist and copyright transfer forms are available for download at the website.

All submitted manuscripts will undergo double-blind peer review by the independent reviewers before acceptance for publication. The corresponding author will be notified of the decision on acceptance, rejection or request for the revision of the manuscripts. After reviewing the revised version, the final manuscript will be sent for proof reading.

The J Nut Food Sci adheres to the definition of authorships described by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). All authors should meet the following criteria:

1. Substantial contribution to conception and design, data acquisition, analysis and/or interpretation.
2. Significant participation in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content
3. Final approval of the version to be published
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Manuscript content and accuracy are the responsibility of the author(s). Manuscripts in the Full-length original research category must be original contributions.

A conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution or employer), a reviewer, or an editor has financial or personal relationships that may inappropriately influence his or her actions. All submitted manuscripts should include a full disclosure of financial relationships (e.g., employment, consultancies, honoraria, research grants) and personal relationships (e.g., academic, intellectual, political, religious) that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest. Some conflicts are unavoidable and a conflict of interest is not an admission of an offence; however, failure to declare a real or perceived conflict may lead to refusal of a submitted manuscript. If there are no conflicts of interest this must be stated: “The authors declare that they have no competing interests. “Conflicts of interest should be identified on the Authors’ Page/Title page.

Authors may wish to acknowledge, with their permission, persons who have made a substantial contribution to the work through technical help or advice or an institution, granting body which have facilitated the research project. Acknowledgments and sources of financial support should be identified on the Authors’ Page/Title page.

The journal does not tolerate plagiarism and authors are strongly advised to check for plagiarism using anti-plagiarism software such as Crosscheck, Turnitin and authenticate before submission. The similarity index needs to be less than 25 in the text. It is advisable to avoid using AI in writing the manuscript. Please refer to the section on the use of Generative AI in Scientific Writing

The authors are advised to be compliant with basic research ethics and general publication ethics. Research papers derived from quantitative or qualitative studies involving humans/animals must have received ERC/IRB approval and the reference number of the proposal and the name of the ERC/IRB need to be submitted.

The article should not have been submitted to any other journal for consideration. A manuscript is considered for publication in J Nut Food Sci with the understanding that it has not been published in total previously in a print or electronic form of journal. This statement should be included in the cover letter. Abstracts that have been presented at a scientific meeting do not prevent a manuscript from consideration for publication. Submission of an article for publication implies that all named authors have agreed on its submission.

The manuscript should be typed double-spaced using standard 12-point Times New Roman type, left margin justified in Microsoft Word. Do not submit manuscripts with track changes or text files in pdf format.  Number each page of the manuscript consecutively (right bottom corner) and include continuous line numbering in the left margin. Manuscripts that do not comply with these specific guidelines will be returned to authors for revision before being sent out for review.

Authors’ Page/Title Page: All manuscripts must include a separate authors’ page that lists

• The title of the manuscript (no more than 15 words)
• Surname with initials, highest academic degree(s), department and institutional affiliation for all authors in the order in which they should appear in the published article
• The name and contact information  (address,  telephone  and  e-mail  address, ORCID Id)  of  the  corresponding  author (responsible for correspondence about the manuscript during the publication process)
• A short title/running title(eight words or fewer)
• Three to five keywords or short phrases that will assist indexers in cross-indexing the article
• The source(s) of financial support
• Acknowledgements
• conflicts of interest
• Word count in the article body (except the abstract, figures, tables and references)

Title: The title should be specific and informative, conveying the findings of the research or review in 15 words. The manuscript title should appear on the title page, abstract, first page of the manuscript text, and all correspondence.

Abstract: The abstract should not exceed 300 words. Manuscript submitted to the Original Research/Short Report/Case Report category should contain a structured abstract that includes the key headings: Background and objectives, methods, results and conclusions. Manuscripts submitted to the Systematic reviews/Mini Reviews/Meta analyses category should contain unstructured abstracts. The abstract should emphasize new and important aspects of the study or observations and relevance to practice.

Text: The text should be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the manuscript category to which it is being submitted for publication, as described above.

Footnotes: Footnotes should be avoided and the information included parenthetically in the text.

References: Authors  are  responsible  for  the  accuracy  of  all  references  cited  in  the manuscript. Incomplete references will be returned to authors for completion. The Journal follows the uniform requirements style for references of American Psychology Association 6th version (file:///C:/Users/dell/Downloads/Reference%20Style_APA.pdf). The full references are listed at the end of the manuscript.

Personal communications may not be cited as references. Permission must be obtained from the person quoted. Articles accepted for publication but not yet published can be designated in the list of references with the notation “Forthcoming” at the end of the reference. If the date of future publication is known, this should be included. Information from manuscripts submitted but not yet accepted should be cited in the text as “unpublished data.” However, inclusion of unpublished data as references is discouraged.

Tables and Figures: A table is a list of numbers or words. A figure is the graphical representation of data. The terms are not interchangeable. Tables and figures should be numbered in order of their appearance in the text. It is recommended that no more than 3 tables and 3 figures be included in an original research manuscript and articles of systematic reviews and meta-analysis; fewer or none for other manuscript categories. Set up each table or figure on a separate page of the document at the end of the file.

Number tables and figures separately in the order in which they are cited in the text using Arabic numerals. Supply a brief title for each table or figure. Tables need to follow the standard format (without inside borders) giving each column a short or abbreviated heading. Place explanatory matter in footnotes, not in the heading. Ensure all tables and figures are cited in sequential order within the text and should stand alone.

Supplementary material: Additional tables, figures or other material (e.g. questionnaires) can be included as supplementary material and identified in the text (e.g. Supplementary file). This material is published unedited along with the article as a supplementary material.

Numbers, Abbreviations, and Units of Measure: Use standard abbreviations, including statistical notations. Length, height, weight, volume, temperature, and clinical chemistry should be reported in metric units, according to the International System of Units.

The table below shows the house-style of this journal.

When authors utilize generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process, they should limit their use to enhancing readability and language. It is essential to maintain human oversight and control when applying such technology, as AI-generated output may contain inaccuracies, omissions, or biases. Authors must thoroughly review and edit the results to ensure accuracy. AI and AI-assisted technologies should not be credited as authors or co-authors, nor cited as such.

Authors are required to disclose their use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process within their manuscript. This disclosure will be included in the published work. It is important to emphasize that authors bear full responsibility and accountability for the content of their work.

Authors are required to disclose their use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process by adding a statement at the end of their manuscript in a dedicated section titled “Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process.” The statement should clearly state the name of the tool or service used and the purpose for which it was employed. Additionally, authors must confirm that they thoroughly reviewed and edited the content post-use and accept full responsibility for the publication’s content.

This disclosure requirement excludes the use of basic tools for routine grammar, spelling, and reference checks. Authors should omit the statement if there are no disclosures to make.

A cover letter addressed to the Editorial Board of the journal by the corresponding author is a requirement. The cover letter should include a statement that a manuscript has not been published in its entirety previously in print or electronic form and is not under consideration by another publication or electronic medium. It may also include information about the list of where and when the study has been presented in part elsewhere, if applicable and disclaimers, if any.

For further information: Visit NSSL website

Contacts:

Journal Administrative Officer;

Dr Malika Fernando 

Contact information:

Email: nssljournal@gmail.com

Mobile: +94 779 350 329

Peer reviewers play a pivotal role in upholding the integrity of scholarly research within the domain of nutrition and food sciences. Their participation hinges on trust and ethical conduct, essential for maintaining the quality of published work. However, reviewers may enter this role without clear guidance on their ethical responsibilities. Thus, it is incumbent upon journals to establish transparent peer review policies, while reviewers must uphold ethical standards in their assessments.

Communication between journals and reviewers is crucial for ensuring consistent, fair, and timely evaluations. The Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences guidelines aim to offer valuable insights to researchers, serve as a reference for editors and publishers in guiding reviewers, and act as an educational tool for institutions training their scholars.

In the context of these guidelines, peer review encompasses evaluations of manuscript submissions to the journal under an ethical framework remains consistent across various materials, but the review process may differ based on the nature of the material. 

This journal adopts a double-anonymous peer review model, striving to pair reviewers’ expertise with submitted manuscripts. Reviews are expected to demonstrate thoughtful engagement, provide constructive feedback, and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in nutrition and food sciences

The primary aim of the peer review process is to ensure the quality and integrity of scholarly publications and research through a rigorous evaluation process. Its mission is centered on attaining excellence by maintaining high standards in the dissemination of knowledge and scientific inquiry. Through thorough examination and constructive feedback, peer review serves as a mechanism to uphold the credibility and reliability of academic work, thereby fostering advancements in various fields of study.

Our platform brings together diverse professionals, each adding their unique perspective to advance knowledge and innovation. Through inclusivity, we nurture creativity, driving us towards new discoveries in the field.

The journal of nutrition and food sciences places a high value on embracing diverse perspectives within the field. We greatly appreciate reviewers who provide critical yet constructive feedback to authors, fostering an environment aimed at enhancing the quality of research and scholarly discourse. Our pool of reviewers is carefully selected to represent a variety of organizations, and professions ensuring a comprehensive and inclusive evaluation process that reflects the breadth and depth of expertise in nutrition and food sciences worldwide.

All communication related to invitations to review, abstracts, manuscripts, and reviews must remain confidential. Reviewers are expected not to disclose their reviews or any information regarding the review process without prior consent from the editors and authors involved, even after publication. This confidentiality extends to any comments provided by other reviewers to the authors, which are shared with you during the decision-making process.

Before you review

Upon receiving an email inviting you to review for an original research, review, meta-analysis or case report etc you will have the option to accept or decline. Before making your decision, consider the following:

Journal editors seek thorough and specific reviews. If you are uncertain about your capacity to deliver at that level, you can suggest a colleague who might have more availability. If you are interested in reviewing but currently busy, inform the editor and express your willingness to review at a later time.

The editor may not be familiar with the intricacies of your work, so assess whether you have the expertise required for the review. Keep your ORCID account updated with relevant keywords and institutional details to assist editors in matching you with suitable papers.

When a request is made for a review, it is advisable to acknowledge promptly, even if you are undecided to accept. The timeframe for the review will vary and the editorial office will provide you with the specific deadline upon invitation.

Reviewers must carefully assess whether they have any conflicts of interest that could compromise the impartiality of their review. It is essential to decline the invitation to review if any of the following situations apply:

• Have a close personal relationship (spouse or family member) or professional connection (past or present PhD students and postdocs) with any of the authors.
• Have financial interests related to or impacted by the manuscript under review or its topic.
• Feel unable to maintain objectivity.

If the reviewer believes they can remain objective despite a potential conflict of interest, they should promptly inform the editor or editorial office upon receiving the review invitation.

Additionally, reviewers must uphold unbiased standards, disregarding factors such as nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, or any other characteristics of the authors, as well as the origin of the manuscript or commercial considerations. These principles ensure the integrity and fairness of the peer review process in scholarly publications.

Upon receipt of your review request via email, you have the option to either accept or decline it. 

As a reviewer, your primary responsibility lies in evaluating the scientific content and validity of manuscripts. However, your expertise places you in a prime position to identify instances of fraud, plagiarism, or potential defamation/libel within the text. Should you notice any such ethical concerns, whether intentional or accidental, it is imperative to promptly notify the journal office. By maintaining the highest ethical standards, you contribute to safeguarding the integrity and credibility of the scientific literature. For further insights into the various ethical challenges you may encounter, we encourage you to consult our research and publication ethics guidelines page. Your diligence and adherence to ethical principles are integral to maintaining the trustworthiness of scholarly research.

When evaluating the manuscript, consider whether it introduces novel and compelling insights to the field. Assess whether it contributes to the existing body of knowledge and addresses an important research question. Compare the manuscript to highly-cited or downloaded papers in the field to gauge its significance. Tools like Web of Science or Scopus can aid in this comparison. This ensures a comprehensive understanding of the existing literature and helps contextualize the manuscript’s contributions. By addressing these aspects, reviewers play a crucial role in ensuring the relevance and impact of published research.

Authors are expected to adhere closely to the manuscript presentation instructions outlined in each author’s guidelines of the journal. If deviations from these guidelines are observed and the editor has not addressed them in the review invitation, it is important to bring this to the attention of the editor or highlight it in your review report. By flagging formatting issues and providing feedback, reviewers contribute to the overall quality and professionalism of the published work.

Is the article clearly outlined and does it incorporate key keywords effectively? (Think about how you typically search for research articles.) Does it effectively convey the importance of the research and is the content coherent?

Have all essential fields within the manuscript been duly filled out? Does the abstract aptly encapsulate the substantive content and findings of the article?

Does the manuscript effectively outline the author’s intended objectives and articulate the research question with clarity? Has the author provided a comprehensive overview of existing research literature to contextualize the study? Is it evident how this study either challenges existing knowledge or contributes to it? Are there any significant works that have been overlooked?

Does the author provide an accurate description of the data collection process? Is the study design appropriate for addressing the research question posed? Does the article delineate the procedures followed in conducting the study? If novel methods are employed, are they elucidated sufficiently? Is there adequate information provided for replication of the research? Was the sampling methodology appropriate for the study objectives? Are the equipment and materials utilized adequately described? Does the article clearly specify the type of data collected, with precise descriptions of measurements?

It is important to meticulously review the analysis match with the objectives and errors frequently encountered.

This section is where the author should elucidate their findings. Are the results presented in a clear and understandable manner? It is crucial to evaluate the quality and relevance of the author’s analysis.

Are the assertions made in this section logical and backed by the results obtained? Do the findings align with the author’s initial hypotheses? Do the conclusions effectively integrate the various components of the paper? Does the study support or challenge existing theories? Has the author articulated how the research contributes to the existing body of knowledge?

Please review any included figures and tables and provide suggestions for enhancements if possible. Do these visual elements effectively communicate information to the reader? Are they integral to understanding the narrative? Do the figures accurately represent the data? Are they consistently presented, following the same format throughout the paper?

If the clarity of the author’s argument is compromised by poor English usage, it is imperative to highlight this in the review report. This approach aims to enhance the overall quality of the manuscript by ensuring clear and effective communication of scientific ideas.

Does the paper effectively bridge the gap between theoretical concepts and practical applications? How can the research findings be applied across various domains?

• In practice: What are the economic and commercial implications of implementing the research findings?
• In teaching: How can the research findings be integrated into educational curricula to enhance learning outcomes?
• To influence public policy: How can the research findings inform policy decisions and shape governmental initiatives?
• In research: Does the research contribute meaningfully to the existing body of knowledge in the field?
• For society: Is the research influencing public attitudes or contributing to improvements in quality of life?

It is essential to evaluate whether these implications align cohesively with the findings and conclusions presented in the paper. This ensures that the practical implications are grounded in the empirical evidence and logical reasoning presented within the study.

Is the paper effectively communicated, considering the technical language of the field and the presumed knowledge the audience of the journal? Has the clarity of expression and readability been addressed, including sentence structure, use of jargon, and acronyms? It is crucial to evaluate whether the paper is accessible and comprehensible to the intended readership, ensuring that complex concepts are conveyed in a clear and understandable manner.

Reviewers are tasked with evaluating several key aspects of the manuscript. This includes assessing the importance of the paper and novelty compared to existing literature, determining if the methods, data, and analysis adequately support the conclusions, evaluating the reproducibility of the study, and identifying any ethical concerns. Additionally, reviewers are encouraged to provide feedback on scholarly presentation improvements, such as clarity, grammar, appropriateness of language, logical structure, and quality of display items. 

A well-rounded review should cover the following points:

• Summary: Provide a brief overview of the paper’s topic, contextualize the findings within the existing literature, and assess the overall significance and quality of the work.

• Major issues: Identify any significant flaws in the technological, design, or interpretation aspects of the study, discuss the impact of these flaws on the findings, and evaluate the novelty of the research compared to prior work. Address whether the current results support or challenge earlier findings and propose necessary revisions if major flaws are identified.

• Minor issues: Address any areas of ambiguity, factual errors, or issues with references, numerical data, or visual aids. May avoid focusing on formatting concerns and prioritize specific, constructive feedback.

A comprehensive review should offer a balanced critique, highlighting both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, and providing specific recommendations for improvement.

No indexing services available at the moment.

Cover page, The Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences.pdf

Final Copyright trasfer form NSSL Journal 28.06.2021.pdf

Informaiton page of NSSL Journal.pdf

Subsequent submissions.pdf

Author Guidelines

Download full author guidelines

NSSL Journal Reviwers Instructions

Download Full NSSL Journal Reviewers Intructions

Download The Journal Of Nutirtion And Food Sciences 

Download Full Journal

Separate Articles

Macronutrient Composition of Popular Snacks Available at Food Outlets in Sri Lanka

Meal Composition and Temporal Eating Patterns among Sri Lankan Adults: A Cross-sectional Study

Formulation and Characterization of a Healthy Snack with a Low Glycemic Index

Antioxidant Properties of Selected Underutilized Fruit Species of Sri Lanka after Simulated Oral and Gastro-Intestinal Digestion

Effectiveness of Texture Modified Diets on Dysphagia in Older adults: A Systematic Review

Contribution of Dried Fish to Food and Nutrition Security in Sri Lanka: A review