Food Systems, Safety & Sustainability (FSSS) publishes a range of scholarly contributions addressing food-system safety, sustainability, resilience, governance, technology, public health, and related interdisciplinary concerns. Authors should select the article type that most accurately reflects the purpose, design, and contribution of their manuscript.

All submissions must be original, methodologically sound, relevant to the journal’s scope, and prepared in accordance with the journal’s author guidelines. Unless otherwise stated, manuscripts undergo editorial assessment and external peer review.

Original Research Article

Original Research Articles report substantial and previously unpublished empirical or analytical research. Studies may use quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, experimental, observational, modelling, economic, policy, engineering, environmental, or interdisciplinary approaches.

Research Articles should present a clearly defined research question, appropriate methodology, transparent analysis, and conclusions supported by the evidence.

• Recommended length: 5,000–8,000 words
• Abstract: 200–300 words
• Keywords: 4–8
• Suggested structure: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion
• Peer review: External peer review

Qualitative and interdisciplinary studies may use alternative section headings where these are more appropriate to the research design.

Review Article

Review Articles provide a critical, integrative, and authoritative synthesis of the literature on a significant topic within the journal’s scope. Reviews should do more than summarise existing publications; they should identify major debates, methodological limitations, evidence gaps, and directions for future research, policy, or practice.

• Recommended length: 6,000–10,000 words
• Abstract: 200–300 words
• Keywords: 4–8
• Peer review: External peer review

Narrative reviews must explain the basis for literature selection and the analytical framework used to organise and evaluate the evidence.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses use explicit, reproducible methods to identify, evaluate, and synthesise relevant evidence. Submissions should follow an internationally recognised reporting guideline, such as PRISMA, and include a completed reporting checklist where applicable.

• Recommended length: 5,000–9,000 words
• Abstract: Structured abstract of 250–350 words
• Keywords: 4–8
• Registration: Prospective protocol registration is strongly encouraged and may be required where established registries are available
• Peer review: External peer review

The manuscript should report the search strategy, eligibility criteria, screening procedures, risk-of-bias assessment, synthesis methods, and limitations in sufficient detail to permit evaluation and replication.

Short Communication

Short Communications present concise reports of original and timely findings that make a clearly defined contribution but do not require a full-length Research Article. Suitable submissions may include preliminary findings supported by adequate evidence, narrowly focused experiments, rapid assessments, emerging risks, or significant methodological observations.

• Recommended length: 2,500–4,000 words
• Abstract: 150–250 words
• Keywords: 3–6
• Figures and tables: Normally no more than four combined
• Peer review: External peer review

Short Communications should not be used to divide a larger study into multiple minimally differentiated publications.

Methods Paper

Methods Papers describe the development, validation, adaptation, or substantial improvement of a research method, analytical procedure, measurement instrument, model, protocol, technological system, or decision-support tool relevant to food systems, safety, or sustainability.

• Recommended length: 4,000–7,000 words
• Abstract: 200–300 words
• Keywords: 4–8
• Peer review: External peer review

Authors should demonstrate the method’s validity, reliability, reproducibility, comparative advantage, limitations, and potential applications. Supporting code, protocols, datasets, or technical documentation should be deposited in an appropriate repository where feasible.

Data Paper

Data Papers describe a valuable, well-documented, and reusable dataset rather than testing a conventional research hypothesis. The dataset must be relevant to the journal’s scope and deposited in a trusted repository that provides persistent access and an appropriate identifier.

• Recommended length: 3,000–6,000 words
• Abstract: 150–250 words
• Keywords: 4–8
• Data access: Repository link and persistent identifier required
• Peer review: External peer review

Data Papers should explain how the data were generated, processed, validated, documented, licensed, and made available for reuse. Appropriate ethical, legal, privacy, and intellectual-property requirements must be addressed.

Case Study

Case Studies provide an analytically rigorous examination of a specific programme, organisation, community, supply chain, regulatory intervention, technological implementation, food-safety event, or food-system transformation.

• Recommended length: 3,500–6,500 words
• Abstract: 200–300 words
• Keywords: 4–8
• Peer review: External peer review

Case Studies must extend beyond description by identifying transferable lessons, theoretical implications, methodological insights, policy relevance, or practical consequences. Commercially promotional case reports will not be considered.

Policy Analysis

Policy Analyses critically examine food, agricultural, environmental, public-health, trade, safety, or sustainability policies and their design, implementation, governance, outcomes, or unintended consequences.

• Recommended length: 4,000–7,000 words
• Abstract: 200–300 words
• Keywords: 4–8
• Peer review: External peer review

Submissions should be grounded in appropriate evidence and analytical methods. Policy recommendations must follow logically from the analysis and should acknowledge relevant institutional, economic, social, cultural, and political constraints.

Perspective

Perspectives present a well-reasoned scholarly argument concerning an emerging issue, conceptual development, research controversy, technological change, or future direction in food systems, safety, or sustainability.

• Recommended length: 2,500–5,000 words
• Abstract: 150–250 words
• Keywords: 3–6
• Peer review: External peer review

Perspectives may be interpretive or forward-looking but must be supported by relevant evidence and engage fairly with alternative positions. They should not function as promotional statements or unsupported opinion pieces.

Commentary

Commentaries provide concise, evidence-informed discussion of a current scientific, policy, regulatory, ethical, or professional issue. They may respond to recent developments or to material published in the journal.

• Recommended length: 1,500–3,000 words
• Abstract: Usually not required; a short abstract may be requested
• Keywords: 3–5
• Peer review: Editorial review or external peer review, depending on content

Commentaries should present a clear argument, use appropriate evidence, disclose relevant interests, and avoid personal, defamatory, or purely rhetorical criticism.

Editorial

Editorials address important developments relating to the journal, its scholarly fields, research integrity, public policy, or the broader food-system agenda. Editorials are normally written or commissioned by members of the editorial team.

• Recommended length: 800–2,000 words
• Abstract: Not normally required
• Peer review: Editorial review; external review may be used where appropriate

Unsolicited Editorials are not normally accepted unless prior approval has been obtained from the Editorial Office.

Letter to the Editor

Letters to the Editor provide concise and scholarly discussion of an article published in FSSS or a matter of direct relevance to the journal’s scope. Letters commenting on published articles should normally be submitted within six months of publication.

• Recommended length: 500–1,200 words
• Abstract: Not required
• References: Normally no more than 15
• Figures and tables: Normally no more than one
• Peer review: Editorial review or external peer review

Where a Letter discusses a published article, the original authors may be invited to submit a response. Publication of a Letter or response remains at the discretion of the editors.

Special Issue Contributions

Articles submitted to a Special Issue must correspond to one of the article types listed above and meet the same editorial, ethical, methodological, and peer-review standards as regular submissions. Guest editors may recommend editorial decisions, but final responsibility for acceptance remains with the journal’s authorised editorial leadership.

General Requirements

• Recommended word limits exclude the abstract, references, tables, figure captions, acknowledgements, and supplementary materials.
• Word limits are indicative rather than absolute. Authors should provide sufficient detail for the work to be evaluated and reproduced while avoiding unnecessary repetition.
• All manuscripts must include a clear statement of their relevance to food-system safety, sustainability, resilience, governance, innovation, or public well-being.
• Research involving humans, animals, biological materials, confidential information, or potentially hazardous procedures must comply with applicable ethical and regulatory requirements.
• Authors must provide declarations concerning authorship, conflicts of interest, funding, data availability, and the use of artificial intelligence where applicable.
• Relevant reporting guidelines and completed checklists should be submitted for study designs covered by established standards.
• The editors may request that a manuscript be transferred to a more appropriate article category during editorial assessment.

Authors who are uncertain about the most appropriate article type may contact the Editorial Office before submission and provide a provisional title, abstract, and brief description of the proposed manuscript.