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

All submissions must be original, methodologically sound, relevant to the journal's aims and scope, and prepared in accordance with its current Author Guidelines. Manuscripts undergo initial editorial assessment and, unless otherwise specified for a particular article type, external peer review. The requirements below provide guidance on manuscript length, content, presentation, and editorial assessment.

Original Research Article

Original Research Articles report substantial, previously unpublished empirical, theoretical, or analytical research that makes an original contribution to knowledge. Studies may employ quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, experimental, observational, modelling, economic, policy, engineering, environmental, or other interdisciplinary approaches relevant to the journal's scope.

Manuscripts should establish a clearly defined research question or objective, employ appropriate and transparent methods, present sufficiently detailed analyses, and draw conclusions supported by the evidence.

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

Qualitative, theoretical, and interdisciplinary studies may adopt alternative section headings where these better reflect the research design and analytical approach.

Review Article

Review Articles provide a critical, integrative, and authoritative synthesis of existing scholarship on a significant topic within the journal's scope. Reviews should extend beyond descriptive summaries by evaluating the development of the field, identifying major theoretical and empirical debates, examining methodological limitations, and highlighting gaps in the available evidence.

• Abstract: 200–300 words.
• Keywords: 4–8.
• Peer review: External peer review.

Narrative reviews should explain the rationale for literature selection and the analytical or conceptual framework used to organise and evaluate the evidence. Authors should identify the review's original contribution and discuss implications for future research, policy, or professional practice.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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

• Abstract: Structured abstract of up to 300 words.
• Keywords: 4–8.
• Registration: Prospective protocol registration is strongly encouraged and may be required where an appropriate established registry is available.
• Peer review: External peer review.

Manuscripts should report the search strategy, information sources, eligibility criteria, screening and study-selection procedures, risk-of-bias assessment, evidence-synthesis methods, and study limitations in sufficient detail to permit critical evaluation and reproducibility. Where meta-analysis is undertaken, the statistical methods, heterogeneity assessment, and interpretation of pooled estimates should be clearly explained.

Short Communication

Short Communications present concise reports of original and timely findings that make a clearly defined scholarly contribution without requiring the length of a full Original Research Article. Suitable submissions may include preliminary findings supported by adequate evidence, narrowly focused experiments, rapid assessments, emerging food-system risks, or significant methodological observations.

• Abstract: 150–250 words.
• Keywords: 3–6.
• Figures and tables: Normally no more than four combined.
• Peer review: External peer review.

Short Communications should provide sufficient methodological and analytical detail to support their conclusions. They must not be used to divide a substantially larger study into multiple minimally differentiated publications.

Methods Paper

Methods Papers describe the development, validation, adaptation, or substantial improvement of research methods, analytical procedures, measurement instruments, models, protocols, technological systems, or decision-support tools relevant to food systems, food safety, or sustainability.

• Abstract: 200–300 words.
• Keywords: 4–8.
• Peer review: External peer review.

Authors should demonstrate the validity, reliability, reproducibility, comparative advantages, limitations, and potential applications of the proposed method. Supporting code, protocols, datasets, or technical documentation should be made available through an appropriate repository where feasible and consistent with applicable ethical, legal, and confidentiality requirements.

Data Paper

Data Papers describe valuable, well-documented, and reusable datasets rather than primarily testing conventional research hypotheses. Datasets must be relevant to the journal's scope and deposited in a trustworthy repository providing persistent access and an appropriate persistent identifier.

• Abstract: 150–250 words.
• Keywords: 4–8.
• Data access: Repository link and persistent identifier required.
• Peer review: External peer review.

Data Papers should describe how the data were generated, collected, processed, validated, documented, licensed, and made available for reuse. Authors must address relevant ethical, legal, privacy, intellectual-property, and data-governance requirements. Documentation should enable readers to understand the dataset's structure, quality, limitations, and potential applications.

Case Study

Case Studies provide analytically rigorous examinations of specific programmes, organisations, communities, supply chains, regulatory interventions, technological implementations, food-safety events, or processes of food-system transformation. They should clearly explain case selection, research context, evidence sources, analytical procedures, and the significance of the findings.

• 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, including their formulation, institutional design, implementation, governance, outcomes, and unintended consequences. Contributions may evaluate existing policies, compare regulatory or institutional arrangements, or investigate alternative policy approaches.

• Abstract: 200–300 words.
• Keywords: 4–8.
• Peer review: External peer review.

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

Perspective

Perspectives present well-reasoned scholarly arguments concerning emerging issues, conceptual developments, research controversies, technological changes, or future directions in food systems, safety, and sustainability. They may propose new conceptual approaches, identify neglected questions, or critically examine the implications of scientific and policy developments.

• Abstract: 150–250 words.
• Keywords: 3–6.
• Peer review: External peer review.

Perspectives may be interpretive, critical, or forward-looking, but their central arguments must be supported by relevant scholarship or evidence and engage fairly with reasonable alternative positions. Promotional statements and unsupported opinion pieces are outside this article category.

Commentary

Commentaries provide concise, evidence-informed discussions of current scientific, policy, regulatory, ethical, or professional issues. They may respond to recent developments, examine emerging debates, or critically engage with material previously published in the journal.

• Abstract: Usually not required; a short abstract may be requested.
• Keywords: 3–5.
• Peer review: Editorial review or external peer review, depending on the content.

Commentaries should advance a clear and coherent argument, employ appropriate supporting evidence, disclose relevant competing interests, and avoid personal attacks, defamatory statements, or purely rhetorical criticism.

Editorial

Editorials address significant developments relating to the journal, its scholarly fields, research integrity, public policy, or broader challenges within the global food system. They may introduce thematic collections, discuss emerging research priorities, or examine matters of scholarly and public importance. Editorials are normally written or commissioned by members of the editorial team.

• 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. Editorial contributions must maintain appropriate scholarly standards, transparency, and independence.

Letter to the Editor

Letters to the Editor provide concise, scholarly discussions of articles published in FSSS or matters directly relevant to the journal's scope. Letters may offer constructive criticism, methodological clarification, supplementary interpretation, or an evidence-based response to published research. Letters commenting on published articles should normally be submitted within six months of the original publication.

• Abstract: Not required.
• References: Normally no more than 15.
• Figures and tables: Normally no more than one combined.
• Peer review: Editorial review or external peer review.

Where a Letter discusses a previously published article, the original authors may be invited to submit a response. The publication of a Letter or corresponding response remains subject to editorial assessment and the discretion of the editors.

Special Issue Contributions

Contributions submitted to a Special Issue must correspond to an article category recognised by the journal and satisfy the same editorial, ethical, methodological, and peer-review standards applicable to regular submissions. Guest editors may participate in manuscript assessment and recommend editorial decisions within their assigned responsibilities. Final responsibility for acceptance or rejection remains with the journal's authorised editorial leadership.

General Requirements

• Word counts: Recommended manuscript lengths exclude the abstract, references, tables, figure captions, acknowledgements, and supplementary materials.
• Length flexibility: Recommended word ranges are indicative rather than absolute. Manuscripts should provide sufficient detail for critical evaluation and, where applicable, reproducibility, while avoiding unnecessary repetition.
• Scope relevance: All manuscripts must clearly demonstrate their relevance to food-system safety, sustainability, resilience, governance, innovation, or public well-being.
• Research ethics: Research involving human participants, animals, biological materials, confidential information, or potentially hazardous procedures must comply with applicable ethical, institutional, and regulatory requirements.
• Required declarations: Authors must provide appropriate declarations concerning authorship, competing interests, funding, data availability, and the use of artificial intelligence, where applicable.
• Reporting standards: Relevant reporting guidelines and completed checklists should accompany submissions involving study designs covered by established reporting standards.
• Article classification: During editorial assessment, the editors may request that a manuscript be reclassified under a more appropriate article category.

Before submission: Authors who are uncertain about the most appropriate article type may contact the Editorial Office and provide a provisional manuscript title, abstract, and brief description of the proposed contribution. Manuscripts should also be checked against the journal's current Author Guidelines and relevant editorial policies before submission.