Section policy

  • Editorials: They provide critical analysis and commentary on priority food science and gastronomy topics. However, to ensure the quality and relevance of this section, editorials will preferably be by direct invitation from the editorial committee. Before publication, the editorial team will review invited editorials internally. Unsolicited editorials may be considered, provided they address relevant and current topics for the journal's audience. They are not subject to the peer review process but must meet the journal's quality, clarity, and academic rigor standards. Invited authors may suggest specific topics or proposals for editorials, which the editorial team will evaluate.
  • Letters to the editor: Brief comments that respond to articles previously published in the journal, fostering academic dialogue in food science and gastronomy. These letters may include up to 1000 words, 2 figures, 1 table, and 10 references.
  • Technical notes: Brief reports presenting methodological or technical innovations that impact the field of gastronomy and food science, contributing new approaches and practical solutions.
  • Reflection articles: Proposals for critical analysis and reflections on ethical, social, and policy aspects related to food, providing perspectives that encourage deep debate and discussion.
  • Research articles: Studies presenting original and unpublished results significantly contribute to advancing knowledge in food science and gastronomy. These articles should follow a standard structure: title, authors, abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references.
  • Review articles: These articles critically analyze, synthesize, and evaluate the existing literature on a specific topic, providing a comprehensive view of knowledge in food and gastronomy. Reviews can be classified into several categories based on their objectives, methodology, and scope:
  1. Narrative review: Provides a general and critical overview of the existing literature on a topic. It does not follow a rigorous methodology, so the selection of studies may be subjective. It focuses on providing a comprehensive view of the topic and is helpful in generating hypotheses or identifying knowledge gaps.
  2. Systematic review: Based on a structured and transparent methodology for searching, selecting, and analyzing studies. Its goal is to provide specific answers to research questions while eliminating bias. It may or may not include a meta-analysis.
  3. Meta-analysis: A quantitative technique used in some systematic reviews. It statistically combines the results of similar studies to obtain a more precise overall estimate of the effects studied.