Food Systems, Safety & Sustainability (FSSS) requires authors to report research completely, accurately, transparently, and in sufficient detail to permit scholarly evaluation, interpretation, and, where applicable, replication.

Authors must identify and follow an internationally recognised reporting guideline appropriate to the design, methods, and subject matter of their study. Where no single guideline fully applies, authors should use the most relevant general guideline together with any appropriate extension or complementary standard.

Reporting guidelines improve the completeness and transparency of manuscripts but do not replace sound study design, appropriate statistical analysis, ethical approval, methodological justification, or compliance with the journal’s editorial policies.

General Requirements

Where an established reporting guideline applies, authors must:

• identify the guideline used in the manuscript;
• follow the current applicable version of the guideline;
• consult any relevant extension for the study population, method, intervention, data source, or disciplinary context;
• submit a completed checklist as a supplementary file;
• indicate the manuscript page or line number corresponding to each checklist item;
• submit a flow diagram where required by the guideline;
• explain any checklist item that is not applicable;
• report deviations from a registered protocol or prespecified analysis plan; and
• ensure that the abstract also complies with any applicable abstract-reporting checklist.

The completed checklist is used to assist editorial assessment and peer review. Submission of a checklist does not guarantee that the manuscript is complete, methodologically valid, or suitable for publication.

Selection of a Reporting Guideline

The reporting guideline should be selected according to the actual study design rather than the manuscript title, academic discipline, or article category alone.

For example, a manuscript described as a food-system case study may contain a cross-sectional survey, qualitative interviews, an economic evaluation, and an environmental assessment. In such cases, more than one reporting guideline may be required.

Study Design or Method	Principal Guideline	Additional Requirements
Randomised trials	CONSORT 2025	Checklist, participant-flow diagram, registration and relevant CONSORT extensions
Trial protocols	SPIRIT 2025	Protocol registration, version history and amendment information
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses	PRISMA 2020	Checklist, flow diagram, search strategies and protocol information
Scoping reviews	PRISMA-ScR	Search and selection documentation
Observational studies	STROBE	Use cohort, case-control or cross-sectional checklist as applicable
Nutritional epidemiology	STROBE-nut	Use together with the relevant STROBE checklist
Studies using routinely collected data	RECORD	Describe database linkage, coding, data quality and access restrictions
Qualitative studies	COREQ or SRQR	COREQ is particularly appropriate for interviews and focus groups
Survey studies	CROSS	STROBE may also apply to cross-sectional survey designs
Animal research	ARRIVE 2.0	Essential 10 required as a minimum; full checklist strongly encouraged
Diagnostic-accuracy studies	STARD 2015	Report index test, reference standard, participant flow and accuracy estimates
Prediction models and machine learning	TRIPOD+AI	Report data provenance, model development, validation, calibration and fairness
Economic evaluations	CHEERS 2022	Report perspective, time horizon, costs, outcomes, discounting and uncertainty
Clinical or individual case reports	CARE	Consent for publication is normally required

Randomised Trials

Randomised controlled trials should be reported in accordance with CONSORT 2025 and any relevant CONSORT extension.

Authors must provide:

• a completed CONSORT checklist;
• a participant-flow diagram;
• the trial-registration number and registry;
• the location of the publicly accessible protocol, where available;
• the prespecified primary and secondary outcomes;
• the randomisation and allocation-concealment procedures;
• blinding or masking procedures;
• sample-size justification;
• participant recruitment, exclusions, withdrawals and loss to follow-up;
• harms, adverse events and unintended effects;
• effect estimates with appropriate measures of uncertainty; and
• all deviations from the registered protocol or statistical analysis plan.

Complex food, nutrition, agricultural, behavioural, community or policy interventions should also be described in sufficient detail to permit replication. Authors should use an appropriate intervention-description guideline, such as TIDieR, where applicable.

Official resource: CONSORT–SPIRIT

Trial and Study Protocols

Protocols for randomised trials should follow SPIRIT 2025. Protocols for systematic reviews should follow PRISMA-P.

Protocols should clearly report:

• the protocol version and date;
• registration information;
• research objectives and hypotheses;
• eligibility criteria;
• interventions or exposures;
• outcomes and measurement schedules;
• sample-size determination;
• data-management and analytical plans;
• ethical and safety procedures;
• dissemination plans; and
• procedures for documenting amendments.

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses should follow PRISMA 2020. Authors must submit the completed PRISMA checklist and the appropriate PRISMA flow diagram.

The manuscript and supplementary files should include:

• the review question and eligibility criteria;
• protocol and registration information;
• all databases, registers, websites and other information sources searched;
• the complete search strategy for each major database;
• the date on which each search was conducted;
• study-selection and data-extraction procedures;
• methods used to assess risk of bias;
• effect measures and synthesis methods;
• assessment of heterogeneity and reporting bias;
• certainty or confidence in the body of evidence where applicable;
• excluded full-text records with principal reasons for exclusion; and
• all deviations from the registered protocol.

Authors should use the relevant PRISMA extension where appropriate:

• PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews;
• PRISMA-P for review protocols;
• PRISMA-S for literature-search reporting;
• PRISMA-DTA for reviews of diagnostic-test accuracy;
• PRISMA-NMA for network meta-analyses; and
• another formally recognised extension relevant to the review design.

Official resource: PRISMA Statement

Observational Studies

Cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies should follow the applicable STROBE checklist.

Authors should report:

• the study design in the title or abstract where appropriate;
• the setting, location and study period;
• participant-selection procedures;
• eligibility criteria;
• definitions of exposures, outcomes, predictors, confounders and effect modifiers;
• data sources and measurement procedures;
• efforts to address bias;
• sample-size considerations;
• handling of missing data;
• statistical methods and adjustment procedures;
• participant numbers at each stage;
• unadjusted and adjusted estimates;
• sensitivity and subgroup analyses; and
• limitations affecting interpretation and generalisability.

Official resource: STROBE

Nutritional Epidemiology

Observational studies involving dietary intake, nutritional status, food consumption or diet-related exposures should follow STROBE-nut together with the applicable STROBE checklist.

Authors should provide sufficient information concerning:

• dietary-assessment instruments;
• instrument validation and calibration;
• food-composition databases;
• portion-size estimation;
• energy adjustment;
• dietary-pattern construction;
• supplement use;
• repeat measurements;
• misreporting and measurement error;
• handling of implausible energy intake;
• nutrient conversion and categorisation; and
• reproducibility of dietary variables.

Official resource: STROBE-nut

Routinely Collected and Administrative Data

Studies using registries, administrative records, surveillance systems, electronic records, commercial databases or other routinely collected data should use RECORD together with STROBE where applicable.

Authors should report:

• the name, purpose and coverage of each data source;
• the period covered by the data;
• eligibility and data-linkage procedures;
• codes, algorithms and classification systems used;
• validation of outcome or exposure definitions;
• data completeness and known limitations;
• duplicate-record and missing-data procedures;
• access restrictions and data-governance arrangements; and
• whether the analytical code or phenotype definitions are available.

Qualitative Research

Qualitative studies should follow COREQ or SRQR, depending on the design.

COREQ is particularly suitable for studies using interviews and focus groups. SRQR may be used for a broader range of qualitative methodologies.

Authors should report:

• the qualitative approach and methodological orientation;
• the research setting and context;
• participant-selection and recruitment procedures;
• sample size and rationale;
• characteristics of researchers involved in data collection and analysis;
• researcher positioning and reflexivity;
• interview, focus-group, observation or document-analysis procedures;
• development and use of interview guides;
• recording, transcription and translation procedures;
• coding and analytical methods;
• use of software;
• procedures used to support credibility, dependability and confirmability;
• participant quotations or other supporting evidence;
• negative, divergent or contradictory cases; and
• ethical and confidentiality protections.

Official resources:

• COREQ
• SRQR

Mixed-Methods Research

Mixed-methods studies should comply with the reporting guideline applicable to each quantitative and qualitative component.

Authors should additionally explain:

• the mixed-methods design;
• the rationale for combining methods;
• the sequence and priority of study components;
• how data collection and analyses were connected;
• the stage at which integration occurred;
• how convergent and divergent findings were handled;
• the contribution of integration to the final interpretation; and
• limitations arising from the mixed-methods design.

Survey Research

Survey studies should follow the CROSS checklist. Where the survey is part of a cross-sectional observational study, the applicable STROBE checklist should also be used.

Authors should report:

• the target population and sampling frame;
• the sampling and recruitment procedures;
• questionnaire development, adaptation and pretesting;
• instrument validity and reliability;
• mode of survey administration;
• inclusion and exclusion criteria;
• methods used to prevent duplicate or fraudulent responses;
• response, completion and participation rates;
• handling of partial responses and missing items;
• weighting and adjustment procedures;
• incentives offered to participants; and
• the complete questionnaire or a repository link where appropriate.

Official resource: CROSS

Animal Research

Research involving live animals should follow ARRIVE 2.0. Compliance with the ARRIVE Essential 10 is required as a minimum, and authors are strongly encouraged to complete the full ARRIVE 2.0 checklist.

Authors should report:

• the study design and experimental unit;
• sample-size calculation;
• inclusion and exclusion criteria;
• randomisation and blinding;
• animal species, strain, sex, age and relevant characteristics;
• housing, husbandry and environmental conditions;
• experimental procedures;
• anaesthesia, analgesia and euthanasia methods;
• humane endpoints;
• adverse events;
• ethical approval and regulatory compliance;
• statistical methods;
• outcomes and effect estimates; and
• measures taken to minimise animal use and suffering.

Veterinary observational studies or livestock trials should also use a relevant veterinary extension, such as STROBE-Vet or REFLECT, where applicable.

Official resource: ARRIVE 2.0

Diagnostic-Accuracy Studies

Studies evaluating the accuracy of food-safety tests, biomarkers, sensors, screening systems, laboratory assays or diagnostic technologies should follow STARD 2015 where the design corresponds to a diagnostic-accuracy study.

Authors should report:

• the intended use of the index test;
• participant or sample-selection procedures;
• the index test and reference standard in sufficient detail;
• prespecified thresholds;
• blinding between index-test and reference-standard interpretation;
• handling of indeterminate results;
• participant or sample flow;
• sensitivity, specificity and predictive values where applicable;
• confidence intervals and uncertainty;
• missing or uninterpretable observations;
• adverse events or operational risks; and
• registration and protocol availability where applicable.

Official resource: STARD 2015

Prediction Models, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Studies developing, validating, updating or evaluating prediction models using regression, machine learning or related artificial-intelligence methods should follow TRIPOD+AI where applicable.

Authors should report:

• the intended purpose and target users of the model;
• the source, ownership, period and setting of the data;
• eligibility criteria and sample-selection procedures;
• outcome definitions and reference standards;
• predictor definitions and measurement procedures;
• data preprocessing and feature engineering;
• handling of missing data and outliers;
• training, validation and test-set construction;
• procedures used to prevent data leakage;
• model architecture, parameters and software versions;
• hyperparameter selection;
• internal and external validation;
• discrimination, calibration and uncertainty;
• comparison with relevant baseline approaches;
• subgroup, fairness and bias analyses;
• model interpretability and explainability;
• human oversight and intended decision context;
• limitations affecting transportability or generalisability;
• availability of code, trained models and documentation; and
• computational resources necessary to reproduce the analysis.

Authors should use additional specialised AI reporting guidance where it more closely matches the study design.

Official resource: EQUATOR AI and Machine-Learning Guidelines

Economic Evaluations

Economic evaluations should follow CHEERS 2022.

Authors should report:

• the study perspective;
• the population and setting;
• the interventions or alternatives compared;
• the time horizon;
• the discount rate;
• the measurement and valuation of costs and outcomes;
• currency, price date and conversion methods;
• model structure and assumptions;
• data sources;
• analytical methods;
• uncertainty and sensitivity analyses;
• distributional or equity considerations where relevant;
• engagement with affected stakeholders where applicable;
• funding and conflicts of interest; and
• limitations affecting decision-making.

Official resource: CHEERS 2022

Clinical and Individual Case Reports

Clinical or individual case reports should follow the CARE guideline. CARE is not normally required for organisational, supply-chain, policy or community case studies unless the manuscript contains an individual clinical case report.

Applicable manuscripts should include:

• an appropriate case-report title;
• an abstract;
• patient or case information;
• clinical or event chronology;
• diagnostic assessment;
• interventions;
• follow-up and outcomes;
• adverse or unintended events;
• discussion of relevant literature;
• the patient or participant perspective where appropriate; and
• documented consent for publication.

Official resource: CARE Guidelines

Food-Safety Laboratory and Analytical Studies

Where no single reporting guideline fully covers a food-safety laboratory or analytical study, authors must report sufficient methodological information to permit critical evaluation and replication.

Relevant information may include:

• sampling frame, sampling location and sampling dates;
• sample collection, transport and storage conditions;
• sample preparation and extraction procedures;
• reference methods and recognised standards;
• instrument manufacturer, model and operating conditions;
• reagents, media, standards and reference materials;
• microbial strains, accession numbers or isolate characteristics;
• positive, negative, blank and matrix controls;
• calibration procedures and calibration ranges;
• limits of detection and quantification;
• analytical sensitivity and specificity;
• accuracy, precision, repeatability and reproducibility;
• recovery and matrix effects;
• measurement uncertainty;
• quality-assurance and proficiency-testing procedures;
• criteria for accepting or rejecting analytical runs;
• handling of non-detects, censored values and outliers; and
• all departures from established analytical protocols.

Life-Cycle Assessment and Environmental-Footprint Studies

Life-cycle assessment and environmental-footprint studies should comply with relevant internationally recognised standards and disciplinary guidance.

Authors should report:

• the goal and intended application of the assessment;
• the functional unit;
• system boundaries;
• reference flows;
• cut-off criteria;
• allocation methods;
• inventory-data sources;
• geographical, temporal and technological coverage;
• data-quality assessment;
• impact-assessment methods and categories;
• software and database names and versions;
• assumptions and value choices;
• treatment of biogenic carbon and land-use change where relevant;
• uncertainty and sensitivity analyses;
• scenario definitions;
• normalisation or weighting procedures;
• comparative-assertion limitations; and
• critical review arrangements where applicable.

Authors should identify the specific standards, methodological frameworks or product-category rules followed.

Mathematical Modelling and Simulation

Mathematical, systems-dynamics, agent-based, optimisation and simulation studies should provide sufficient detail to permit independent evaluation and reproduction.

Authors should report:

• the purpose and intended use of the model;
• the conceptual or theoretical framework;
• the model structure and boundaries;
• equations and algorithms;
• state variables and parameters;
• initial conditions;
• assumptions and simplifications;
• parameter sources and estimation methods;
• calibration procedures;
• internal and external validation;
• baseline and alternative scenarios;
• uncertainty and sensitivity analyses;
• model stability and convergence where relevant;
• software, packages and version numbers;
• random seeds where stochastic procedures are used;
• availability of model code and input data; and
• limitations affecting interpretation or transferability.

Geospatial, Remote-Sensing and Geographic Information Studies

Studies using geographic information systems, satellite data, drones, remote sensing or spatial modelling should report:

• the geographical area and unit of analysis;
• data providers and acquisition dates;
• spatial and temporal resolution;
• coordinate-reference systems and projections;
• data preprocessing and correction procedures;
• classification or feature-extraction methods;
• training and validation data;
• ground-truth procedures;
• spatial autocorrelation and clustering methods;
• handling of scale and boundary effects;
• accuracy and uncertainty estimates;
• software and version numbers; and
• access to spatial data, code and metadata where legally and ethically possible.

Sex, Gender and Population Characteristics

Authors should report sex, gender, age and other relevant population characteristics where these variables are methodologically or substantively relevant.

Authors should:

• distinguish sex from gender accurately;
• explain how variables were defined and measured;
• justify exclusion of relevant groups;
• report disaggregated analyses where appropriate;
• avoid treating one population group as an automatic default;
• avoid unsupported generalisation; and
• use respectful and precise terminology.

Checklist Submission

Completed reporting checklists should be uploaded as supplementary files during submission.

Each checklist should:

• identify the manuscript title;
• identify the reporting guideline and version used;
• provide a page or line number for each applicable item;
• state “not applicable” only where genuinely appropriate;
• include a brief explanation where an item has not been addressed; and
• correspond to the version of the manuscript submitted for review.

When a revised manuscript is submitted, the checklist should be updated where changes affect the location or content of reported items.

Flow Diagrams

A flow diagram must be submitted where required by the applicable guideline. Examples include:

• CONSORT participant-flow diagrams for randomised trials;
• PRISMA study-selection flow diagrams for systematic and scoping reviews;
• STARD participant-flow diagrams for diagnostic-accuracy studies; and
• other design-specific diagrams required by recognised reporting standards.

Flow diagrams should contain data that are consistent with the abstract, main text, tables and supplementary materials.

Protocol Registration and Deviations

Where registration is applicable, the manuscript should state:

• the name of the registry;
• the registration number;
• the registration date;
• whether registration was prospective or retrospective;
• the location of the protocol or analysis plan; and
• all substantive deviations from the registered information.

Changes to outcomes, eligibility criteria, sample size, analytical methods or other prespecified procedures must be identified and justified transparently.

Reporting Guidelines and Peer Review

Editors and reviewers may use the applicable reporting checklist when assessing a manuscript. Authors may be asked to provide additional information where reporting is incomplete, unclear or inconsistent.

A manuscript may be returned for technical revision before external peer review where:

• an applicable reporting guideline has not been identified;
• a required checklist or flow diagram is missing;
• the checklist does not contain page or line references;
• essential methodological information is absent;
• the registered protocol and manuscript appear inconsistent without explanation; or
• the study cannot be evaluated because of incomplete reporting.

Finding an Appropriate Guideline

Authors who are uncertain which guideline applies should search the EQUATOR Network database by study design and subject area.

Official resource: EQUATOR Network Reporting Guidelines Database

Authors may also consult the FSSS Editorial Office before submission by providing the provisional manuscript title, abstract, article type and study design.

Final Reporting Check

Before submitting a manuscript, authors should confirm that:

• the study design has been identified accurately;
• the appropriate reporting guideline and extension have been selected;
• the current applicable version has been used;
• the guideline is named in the manuscript;
• the completed checklist has been uploaded;
• page or line references are included in the checklist;
• the required flow diagram has been supplied;
• protocol and registration information are complete;
• deviations from prespecified methods are disclosed;
• methods are reported in sufficient detail for evaluation and replication;
• data, code, instruments and supporting materials are available where appropriate;
• ethical approval, consent and safety information are reported;
• results are complete and not selectively reported;
• limitations and uncertainty are addressed transparently; and
• all reporting documents correspond to the submitted manuscript version.

Failure to follow an applicable reporting guideline may result in the manuscript being returned for revision, delayed during editorial assessment, or rejected where incomplete reporting prevents reliable evaluation of the research.