Aim and Scope

The most essential journal objectives are: generalization of scientific and practical achievements in the field of health-preserving technologies, technology of healthy food products, including functional, organic and specialized; food biotechnology, biochemical and biological engineering, crop biotechnology, biotechnology of animal raw materials, industrial biotechnology; veterinary medicine and examination of the quality and safety of food products and food raw materials.

Both domestic and foreign specialists working in the field of food production, health care, as well as biotechnology for the food industry and agriculture are invited to publish in the journal.

The journal publishes theoretical, analytical and scientific articles, systematic and scoping reviews, reviews on books in the field of health aspects of food science and technology, veterinary science and technology, animal reproduction and assistive technologies, food biotechnology, biochemical and biological engineering, crop biotechnology, animal biotechnology, industrial biotechnology; and all aspects of food production, packaging, production lines.

Section Policies

HEALTH

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

FOOD

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

BIOTECHNOLOGY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Types of Peer Review and Communication Process

“Health, Food & Biotechnology” offers two types of peer review based on the preferences of authors and reviewers: double-blind (the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed) and open (the identities of authors and reviewers are disclosed). Communication between authors and reviewers is conducted through the journal's electronic system.

Reviewers submit their evaluations regarding the quality of the manuscript via a secure online platform accessible through a link provided in the editorial email. The platform includes detailed instructions and contact information for technical support to address any issues.

Criteria for Accepting Manuscripts for Publication

A manuscript is accepted for publication if it:

1. Makes a significant contribution to the field, expanding or deepening existing knowledge.
2. Fully complies with the journal’s requirements for structure and content based on the specific type of manuscript.

Peer Review Process

Once submitted via the journal's website, the manuscript undergoes an initial editorial review to assess its alignment with the journal's criteria. Only the most promising submissions are sent for peer review, to save time for authors, reviewers, and editors. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's thematic or scientific standards are desk-rejected without external review. In such cases, the editorial team provides a brief explanation for the rejection in their response to the author.

Manuscripts that pass the initial review are sent for peer review. Typically, two reviewers are assigned, but in complex cases (e.g., when reviewer opinions differ), additional reviewers may be involved. Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editorial team makes one of the following decisions:

1. Accept the manuscript without revisions.
2. Accept the manuscript with revisions requested.
3. Reject the manuscript with the possibility of resubmission after significant revision.
4. Reject the manuscript without the possibility of resubmission if it fails to meet key requirements (e.g., lack of novelty, overly narrow focus, or serious methodological flaws).

When reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the editorial team evaluates the strength of each argument and the overall value of the manuscript. In cases of significant disagreement, a meta-reviewer may be invited to provide an independent assessment.

Role and Selection of Reviewers

Selecting reviewers is a critical aspect of the publication process. Reviewers are chosen based on their professional expertise, reputation, and experience. The journal values reviewers who provide thorough and well-reasoned assessments, regardless of whether their feedback is critical or supportive.

Reviewer Protocol

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

1. Key findings and their interpretation.
2. Data validity and identification of errors, if any.
3. Originality and significance of the conclusions.
4. Methodological soundness and data quality.
5. Accuracy of data analysis, including statistical methods.
6. Adequacy of conclusions in relation to the data presented.
7. Recommendations for revision, if necessary.
8. Relevance and accuracy of references to prior literature.
9. Clarity of writing and the alignment of the abstract, introduction, and conclusion with the manuscript’s content.
10. Boundaries of reviewer expertise, indicating any parts of the manuscript not fully assessed.

The reviewer protocol is uploaded to the journal’s electronic system and is accessible to reviewers throughout the evaluation process.

Anonymity and Transparency in Peer Review

The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors or other reviewers unless the reviewers themselves choose to opt for open peer review. Similarly, authors may select an open or blind review format when submitting their manuscripts.

Editing Reviewer Reports

Reviewer reports are forwarded to authors without editorial modifications. Exceptions may be made in cases where reviewer comments are deemed offensive or contain confidential information. Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear, constructive feedback and avoid personal remarks unrelated to the manuscript.

Constructive criticism, when presented professionally, helps authors improve their work or understand the reasons for rejection. Authors are advised to view constructive feedback as an opportunity to refine their manuscripts.

Open Access Policy

"Health, Food & Biotechnology"  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)

Editorial Policies

“Health, Food & Biotechnology” adheres to strict editorial policies that prospective authors must consider when preparing their manuscripts. A manuscript submitted to the journal must not duplicate previous works by the author or their co-authors, except for materials presented as conference abstracts. Simultaneous submission of manuscripts to multiple journals is strictly prohibited.

The journal places great emphasis on publication ethics. The editorial board reserves the right to decline the publication of a manuscript, even if a prior decision to publish was made, if serious issues with the scientific content or violations of editorial policies are identified. In such cases, already published articles may be retracted following a thorough investigation of the situation.

Publishing Ethics

The editorial policy of the journal “Health, Food & Biotechnology” is based on international standards of editorial ethics, which apply to the activities of all participants in the publication process: editors, reviewers and authors.

Responsibilities of the Publisher

(1) Preserving the Scientific Archive
The publisher ensures the integrity of the journal's scientific archive by providing necessary resources, adhering to best publishing practices, and maintaining editorial standards.

(2) Safeguarding Editorial Independence
The publisher guarantees that editorial decisions remain free from external pressures, including financial or other influences.

Responsibilities of Editors

(1) Publication Decisions
The editor-in-chief bears full responsibility for deciding whether to publish a manuscript, based on its scientific significance and value to the journal’s audience.

(2) Peer Review Oversight
Editors ensure an unbiased, timely, and equitable review process by selecting qualified reviewers and promoting diversity and inclusivity.

(3) Fair and Transparent Evaluation
Manuscripts are judged solely on their scientific merits, with clear communication of editorial policies to authors and reviewers.

(4) Confidentiality
Editors protect the confidentiality of all submitted materials and communications with reviewers.

(5) Conflict of Interest Management
Editors disclose and address any potential conflicts of interest when making decisions.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

(1) Providing Constructive Feedback
Reviewers assist editors in making informed decisions by offering constructive and detailed evaluations to improve manuscripts.

(2) Maintaining Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are treated as strictly confidential and must not be shared with anyone outside the review process.

(3) Upholding Ethical Standards
Reviewers evaluate submissions objectively, avoiding personal bias or conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment.

Responsibilities of Authors

(1) Scientific Integrity
Authors are responsible for presenting their research accurately, providing complete and reliable data that enables reproducibility.

(2) Data Management
Authors must retain research data securely and provide access when required for verification or replication.

(3) Originality and Proper Citation
Manuscripts must be original, properly cite prior work, and avoid plagiarism. Previously published material, aside from conference abstracts or theses, is not permitted.

(4) Authorship Criteria
Authorship is restricted to individuals who made substantial contributions to the study's conception, design, execution, or interpretation.

(5) Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Authors must disclose any relationships that could influence the perception of their work.

(6) Error Notification
If an error is discovered in a published work, authors must promptly notify the editor and collaborate to correct or retract the article.

Ethical Principles in Research

(1) Academic Freedom and Responsibility
Researchers are free to conduct and publish their findings, provided they uphold intellectual honesty and avoid causing harm to individuals, society, or the environment.

(2) Research Impact
Research should respect human dignity, natural resources, and cultural heritage. Authors must consider indirect consequences, such as stigmatization or misuse of findings, particularly regarding vulnerable groups.

(3) Ethical Standards for Human and Animal Studies
Studies involving human participants require informed consent and ethical approval, which must be documented in the manuscript. Research involving animals must adhere to ethical guidelines and minimize harm.

Editorial Independence

All editorial decisions are made based solely on scientific merit, free from commercial or external pressures. This includes peer review, acceptance, rejection, and publication.

Appeals Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions within one month by submitting a written request. Appeals are accepted only for manuscripts that underwent peer review and must include detailed responses to all editorial and reviewer comments, supported by evidence.

Authorship Criteria

All authors must contribute meaningfully to the manuscript. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring co-authors' approval and acts as the primary contact with the journal.

Acknowledgment of Contributions

The journal publishes contribution statements using the CRediT taxonomy to enhance transparency.

Author Identification

All authors must provide an ORCID identifier to ensure transparency in authorship and enhance accountability throughout the publication process.

Retraction Policy

Purpose of Retraction

The primary aim of retraction is to alert readers to publications containing serious errors or unreliable data that should not be relied upon. Such unreliability may result from honest mistakes or intentional misconduct, such as plagiarism, duplicate publications, or undisclosed conflicts of interest that could affect data interpretation or recommendations. Retraction is also a means of preserving the integrity of the scientific record by preventing other researchers and readers from relying on inaccurate or misleading results. This process plays a critical role in maintaining high standards of scientific research and fostering trust in published findings.

The editorial board of the journal Science Editor and Publisher, guided by the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Rules for Retraction of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ASEP), follows a structured and transparent policy for handling retractions.

Grounds for Retraction

Articles may be retracted if they involve breaches of scientific publishing ethics, such as:

1. Plagiarism or unattributed borrowing;
2. Duplicate publication in multiple journals;
3. Self-plagiarism;
4. Data falsification or fabrication (e.g., manipulation of experimental results);
5. Significant errors (e.g., incorrect interpretations) that compromise the publication’s scientific value;
6. Misrepresentation of authorship, such as inclusion of individuals who do not meet authorship criteria;
7. Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
8. Republishing without the author’s consent;
9. Other violations of publication ethics.

Retraction acknowledges the presence of such issues in the publication. Even if authors disagree with the decision, the editorial board reserves the right to proceed with retraction to maintain the credibility of the journal. Retraction is not intended to penalize authors but to ensure transparency and uphold the standards of scientific communication.

Retraction Procedure

The process of retraction involves the following steps:

(1) Initiation:

The editor-in-chief initiates the retraction based on expert reviews, concerns raised by third parties, or a request from the author(s).

Authors are formally notified and provided with detailed reasoning for the retraction.

(2) Author Response:

Authors can either agree to the retraction or present arguments against it. The editorial board makes the final decision after reviewing the evidence.

If authors decline to cooperate, the editorial board may proceed independently, as it bears responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the journal’s content.

(3) Author-Initiated Retraction:

Authors may request a retraction in writing, explaining the reasons (e.g., data errors or unauthorized use of information).

If the board approves, the retraction is carried out in accordance with COPE and ASEP guidelines.

Authors may appeal to ASEP’s Ethics Council if they disagree with the editorial board’s response.

(4) Third-Party-Initiated Retraction:

Claims raised by third parties are reviewed by experts, and the authors are notified of the findings.

If no response is received, the editorial board may retract the article without author consent.

Documentation

Retraction decisions are recorded in an editorial meeting protocol.

The retraction notice includes the following:

1. Author(s)’ name(s), article title, journal name, publication details, and DOI;
2. Initiator of the retraction;
3. Grounds for retraction (e.g., plagiarism, duplication, with references to original sources);
4. Date of the decision and a link to the article metadata page on the journal’s website, where the retraction notice is displayed.

Removal of Articles

In exceptional cases, an article may be entirely removed (e.g., in instances of defamatory content or threats to public safety). Metadata, such as the title and author names, is retained with a statement explaining the removal.

Notification and Indexing

The editor-in-chief sends the retraction protocol to:

1. National Electronic Library (eLibrary.ru) and other bibliographic databases, where indexing is updated to reflect the retraction. In databases like RSCI, retracted articles are labeled accordingly.
2. ASEP’s Ethics Council for inclusion in the Retraction Database.
3. Relevant dissertation councils, if the article was referenced in academic defenses.

Retraction information is also published as a separate file on the journal’s website.

Consequences

Depending on the severity of the breach, the editorial board may impose a temporary publication ban on the author(s). This measure helps protect the journal’s integrity and ensures adherence to high ethical standards in scientific publishing.

Policy on the Use of Generative AI

With the increasing adoption of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies by authors in the preparation of scientific manuscripts, Journal has implemented a policy to guide their use. The journal will continue to monitor advancements in this area and revise the policy as needed to ensure responsible and ethical practices.

Author Policies

Policy on Correction and Retraction of Articles After Publication

The journal emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity and completeness of the scientific archive, thereby fostering trust in the authority of published materials. In most cases, published articles remain unchanged, except in the situations described below, where corrections, withdrawal, or retraction may be required.

The editorial board is responsible for deciding which manuscripts are published, following editorial standards and complying with legal requirements such as laws on defamation, copyright infringement, and privacy. When changes to the scientific archive are necessary, all parties involved in the specific case are notified, and the results of the case review, along with the decisions made, are published on the article’s page to ensure transparency for the scientific community.

The policy on corrections to the scientific archive is periodically reviewed and updated in accordance with evolving standards and best practices.

Corrections Initiated by Authors

If authors identify an error in their published article, they must contact the journal as soon as possible using the contact information provided on the journal's website.

Typically, the corresponding author is responsible for reporting errors to the journal. The editor or an appointed representative (e.g., a member of the editorial board with relevant expertise) reviews the correction request and any supporting evidence. If necessary, the correction may undergo additional peer review. The editor determines the appropriate method for implementing corrections, consulting the editorial board or the ASEP Ethics Council on matters of research integrity when required.

Corrigendum

A corrigendum is issued when an error or omission does not compromise the integrity or conclusions of the article. The corrigendum is prepared by the authors, with all co-authors agreeing to its publication. It is linked to the original article and displayed on the article's page on the journal's website.

If the error occurred during the publication process due to the publisher's fault, the journal will issue an erratum. Like the corrigendum, the erratum is linked to the corrected article and published on its page.

Withdrawal of Manuscripts Accepted for Publication

A manuscript in the "accepted for publication" status can be withdrawn prior to official publication in the following cases:

1. Errors are discovered in the manuscript.
2. The manuscript duplicates previously published work.
3. The authors violated editorial policies (e.g., multiple submissions, false authorship claims, plagiarism, or data manipulation).
4. The manuscript was erroneously published during the production process.

If a manuscript is withdrawn, its content (HTML and PDF) is removed and replaced with a notification indicating that the article has been withdrawn in accordance with the journal's withdrawal policy, along with a link to this policy.

Retraction of Published Articles

Articles are retracted in cases of significant errors that render the results unreliable or when journal standards are violated.

The editorial board may initiate retraction after consulting the ASEP Ethics Council in the following cases:

1. Errors (e.g., computational or experimental mistakes) or deliberate manipulation (e.g., data falsification) make the results unreliable.
2. Plagiarism is identified.
3. The results were previously published elsewhere without proper attribution, notification, or permission (duplicate publication).
4. Materials were published without the authors’ consent.
5. Copyright infringement, confidentiality breaches, or other legal issues are identified.
6. Research violates ethical standards for studies involving humans or animals.
7. Evidence of peer review or editorial process manipulation is found.
8. Unjustified authorship (e.g., purchased authorship) or citation manipulation is discovered.
9. Significant conflicts of interest were not disclosed, potentially affecting the interpretation of the work.

Use of Third-Party Materials

The journal requires compliance with the following rules when using copyrighted materials:

Mandatory Permissions
Reproducing substantial parts of copyrighted materials requires formal permission from the copyright holder. This applies to text, illustrations, diagrams, tables, and photographs.

Obtaining Permissions
Authors must:

1. Identify the copyright holder.
2. Obtain written permission.
3. Ensure the permission covers the intended use.

Documentation
Written permission must be included in the manuscript submission, and proper attribution must be provided in the article text or figure/table captions.

Exceptions
No permission is required for public domain materials or those under open licenses (e.g., Creative Commons), provided the license terms are followed.

Access to Data

The journal supports transparency and reproducibility of research. Authors are required to provide additional data upon request to validate the findings in their article.

Formats and Access
Data should be provided in accessible formats (e.g., CSV, Excel, PDF) and can be:

1. Shared directly with reviewers through the journal’s platform.
2. Deposited in public repositories such as Zenodo or Mendeley Data.

Confidentiality
Additional data provided for review remains confidential and accessible only to reviewers and the editorial team.

Publication of Additional Data
Authors are encouraged to publish additional data in public repositories and cite these repositories in their articles, promoting transparency and further scientific use.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

To maintain transparency and allow readers to evaluate potential biases, Journal requires authors to disclose any financial or non-financial interests related to the research presented. The responsibility for submitting a conflict-of-interest statement on behalf of all authors lies with the corresponding author.

A conflict of interest encompasses any financial or non-financial interest that could compromise (or appear to compromise) the objectivity, integrity, or value of the research, potentially influencing the authors' ability to objectively present, analyze, and interpret data.

Financial Conflicts of Interest

(1) Funding
Authors must disclose any research funding, including salaries, equipment, supplies, or other expenses provided by organizations with a financial stake in the publication. Additionally, the role of the funding organization in conceptualizing, designing, collecting, analyzing, or publishing the research must be reported.

(2) Employment
Any recent (during the research period), current, or anticipated employment with organizations that could financially benefit or suffer from the publication must be declared.

(3) Personal Financial Interests:
This includes:

1. Ownership of stocks or shares in companies with a financial stake in the publication.
2. Consulting fees, honoraria, or other forms of remuneration, such as payments for attending symposia, from entities with financial interests in the research.
3. Patents or pending patent applications (filed by the authors or their institutions) whose value may be influenced by the publication. For patents, authors must disclose the applicant (e.g., the author or institution), inventor(s), application number, status, and the specific aspects of the manuscript covered by the patent.

Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest

Non-financial conflicts can arise from personal or professional relationships that may influence the publication process. Authors and reviewers must report any unpaid roles or affiliations that could potentially bias their work. Examples of non-financial conflicts include:

1. Unpaid memberships in governmental or non-governmental organizations.
2. Participation in advocacy or lobbying organizations without financial compensation.
3. Unpaid advisory roles in commercial entities.
4. Voluntary consulting activities for a company.

Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are required to disclose conflicts of interest during the submission process through the journal’s submission system. The corresponding author must submit the statement on behalf of all co-authors.

In cases of double-anonymous peer review, reviewers will only be informed of the existence of financial or non-financial interests without revealing authors' identities.

Regardless of the peer review model, all authors must include a conflict-of-interest declaration in the published article. This declaration should use one of the following standard statements:

• "The authors declare the following conflicts of interest: ..."
• "The authors declare no conflicts of interest."
• "The authors declare that confidentiality agreements prevent disclosure of conflicts of interest related to this work."

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Journal encourages reviewers to recuse themselves from evaluating a manuscript if they have a significant conflict of interest. Reviewers must notify the editors of any conflicts that could be perceived as compromising their impartiality. Editors will take such disclosures into account when considering reviewer recommendations.

Preprint and Postprint Policy

As part of the submission process, authors are required to confirm that their article has neither been published nor accepted for publication in any other journal.

Additionally, when referencing articles from the Journal, authors are requested to include a link to the official website of the journal, providing the full URL of the cited material.

Linking и Sharing Data Policy

Transparency Policy: Use of Corporate Email Addresses

Mandatory Use of Institutional Email

When submitting a manuscript, authors must provide a corporate email address associated with their current workplace. This requirement aims to ensure transparency, trust, and the authenticity of the provided data.

Requirement to Provide Email Addresses of All Authors

Although communication with the editorial team is handled by the corresponding author, it is necessary to provide the corporate email addresses of all authors listed in the manuscript. This is required to confirm their affiliation and compliance with the journal's standards.

Exceptions to the Rule

In cases where an author does not have access to a corporate email address (e.g., independent researchers, graduate students working outside an institution), the use of a web-based email address is permitted. However, the author must provide written confirmation of their affiliation, including contact details of their supervisor or an official representative of the organization.

Affiliation Monitoring

The journal reserves the right to verify the provided email address during the peer review or publication process. If doubts arise, the editorial team may request additional supporting documents from the author.

Use of Reviewers' Email Addresses

Reviewers are also required to provide a corporate email address to confirm their affiliation and qualifications. In exceptional cases, the editorial team may consider the use of web-based email addresses, provided a justification is submitted.