Author Guidelines

World Nutrition charges neither authors nor readers. It is funded via World Public Health Nutrition Association membership fees and engages in no advertising or marketing activities. Authors are requested to kindly consider joining WPHNA (https://wphna.org/membership) fees for which are lower for certain groups. Editors and peer reviews work on journal tasks on a strictly volunteer basis. The journal is editorially independent of the Association and thus free from conflicts of interest. It is published quarterly, on the last days of March, June, September, and December. It is a permanent journal. If events ever suggest that the Association will cease to exist, steps will be taken to ensure that the content of World Nutrition remains available online. Authors are readers are requested to be aware that the name of the journal is simply World Nutrition. Another journal added the word "journal" to that, starting up in 2016, 6 years after World Nutrition began to publish.

Authors can submit previously unpublished original research, literature reviews, editorials, commentaries, book reviews or letters to the editor. It is unethical and unacceptable to submit an article to more than one publisher or journal at the same time. (Each one does a lot of work to review and edit your submission and none want to publish something already published elsewhere.) If you would like to publish an article similar to or translated from one published in another in another language, contact the editor to discuss this before submitting it. 

Substantive critique of previously published articles in the journal are welcomed and if warranted will be published. The authors of any such critiques article will be given the opportunity to publish a response in the same issue. If you would like to contribute a regular column to the journal, please contact the Editor-in-Chief to discuss this. 

There are no limits to the length of submissions, but literature reviews longer than 2000 words should be preceded by an abstract. Adding an abstract to any submission on the metadata page will increase its visibility because each word on the metadata page is searchable. Do not copy anything directly from the internet into your Word document. First remove all hidden formatting, for example by copying first to Notepad. 

All submissions are reviewed by the editors. Research papers, literature reviews, and evidence-based commentaries will be sent for peer review. Peer reviewer and author identities are masked to make peer reviews anonymous. Usually at least two of them must be complete before they are shared with authors. All submitted material will be handled in confidence except for the purposes of review AND in order to investigate possible misconduct.

When authors are provided with reviewer responses, they should revise the manuscript accordingly. For substantive comments from peer reviewers, authors should explain their response if they believe the reviewer is incorrect; or explain how the requested revision is beyond the scope of the article. 

We request that authors disclose the use of AI in writing their manuscript. Here are two examples of the kind of language we request be used: 

• "We used the AI tool ChatGPT to generate a draft of our manuscript."
• "We used the AI tool LaMDA to translate our manuscript from Spanish to English."

                Typesetting

Research papers are sent for professional typesetting. Authors can see how they will look here. The World Public Health Nutrition Association has set aside a budget for this that will currently pay about $100 per article. Costs above this will have to be paid by authors. (We pay $6/500 words plus $7/table or figure.) 

Authors of literature reviews or commentaries can pay for typesetting on request. For currently paid up members, WPHNA will cover typesetting costs as well up to the amount one author has paid for membership fees. 

                Referencing

We encourage authors to use referencing liberally. In academic publishing, references are meant to buttress arguments, establish facts, and give credit where it's due. We ask that you refer to original research, however, rather than literature reviews. So-called "daisy-chain" referencing far too often is responsible for maintaining myths and using poorly done research as "evidence." 

WN uses a simple author-date system of referencing because this is easier for authors who do not have access to reference management software. If that is difficult for you, just let us know; we can accept other systems except for research papers, which must use the author-date system. If you do have reference management software, the Chicago author-date style produces a reference list that is easier to read than the default author-date style.

Authors are encouraged, wherever possible, to add URLs (website addresses) to each reference available online at no cost. Each citation must be associated with one of the entries in the alphabetized reference list at the end of the document. Please include the DOI number in all references wherever possible. (Note that these serve as URLs. Clicking on one or pasting it into a browser leads directly to the article.)

In the text, as close as possible to where mention of a reference is needed, the surname of only the author (or both if there are two; first author followed by "et al." if there are more than two), a comma, and then the year of the publication, should be placed in one set of parentheses. Thus, the first reference below would be cited in the text as (Awashi et al, 2013). Alternatively, one can write something like, "As Awashi et al (2013) have pointed out." If you cite two references with the same author and year, label one Smith, 2016a and the next Smith, 2016b.  (Reference management software will instead place the full author and date automatically.)

Here are examples of the reference formats used in WN. 

1. Journal articles 

Awasthi S, Peto R, Read S, et al. 2013. Vitamin A supplementation every 6 months with retinol in 1 million preschool children in North India: Devta, a cluster-randomised trial. Lancet 381:1469–77. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62125-4

In the reference list, the first three authors are listed before et al. There is a period at the end but no periods are used after authors' initials. A period is placed after the date and again after the article name. The journal name is followed by the volume number, a colon and then the page numbers with no spaces--and a fourth period. It is optional to include the issue number for journals where pagination is sequential throughout a volume. It is optional to list entire page numbers in the page range at the end.

2. Books and reports follow a similar format: author, date, title. Then comes city of publication followed by colon and the name of the publisher. Each important word, along with the first and last words in a title are capitalized.

Beaton GH, Aronson KJ, Edmonston B, et al. 1993. Effectiveness of Vitamin A Supplementation in the Control of Young Child Morbidity and Mortality in Developing Countries. Geneva: Administrative Committee on Coordination-Subcommittee on Nutrition (ACC/SCN). https://www.unscn.org/web/archives_resources/files/Policy_paper_No_13.pdf

3. Book chapters or articles within an edited book. The book should be referenced as in the example above, except the author(s) are usually editors, identified as First comes the name of the author(s) of the chapter and year. Then the title of the chapter. This is followed by "In:", then the names of the editors, followed by "Eds.", then the title of the book, the city and the publisher. Last comes the page numbers of the chapter referred to.

Allen, C. 2007. Bacteria, bioterrorism, and the geranium ladies of Guatemala. In: Cabezas AL, Reese E, Waller M, editors. Wages of empire: neoliberal policies, repression, and women's poverty. Boulder (CO): Paradigm Press. p. 169-177.

ADD YOUR METADATA

As part of the submissions process, you will be required to fill in a page asking for a range of information. These metadata are shared widely on the internet and thus assist people in finding your paper, for example in Google Scholar searches. So be complete. Add each author's name in the correct order. When you type in the names of disciplines involved (example: public health nutrition) or key words (example: infant feeding), you must place a comma at the end of each and then hit return or they will all be combined into a single word--and thus be useless. Since every word in an abstract entered as metadata will be searchable, you might want to write one even if you feel your paper is too short to actually need one. Choose key words that are relevant but not in your abstract. 

If your manuscript is accepted, you will be requested to send an image for your paper. This image will then appear beside your title on the table of contents. Either use an image of your own or upload one available free and with no copyright restrictions from the internet.  

WORLD NUTRITION'S PERSPECTIVE ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST

In the context of the journal World Nutrition, conflict of interest (CoI) can be defined as "a situation that is present when there is a meaningful risk that a primary professional interest might be unduly influenced by incompatible interests."  Awareness of CoI's are important to authors and readers in maintaining the integrity of World Nutrition.

                An example

Professor Joe Smith and Professor Judy Alvarez have been in professional conflict with each other for over a decade. His field is sports nutrition and he publishes reviews that convincingly demonstrate that declines in exercise are more important in explaining the obesity epidemic than anything having to do with diet. Her field is public health nutrition and she publishes equally convincing evidence that it's the change in diet characterized by increased consumption of ultra-processed foods and sugars that's mainly to blame. Each considers that the other has a biased view of the literature. Either or both may be correct. However, both professors can honestly declare they have no conflicts of interest when they publish.

Their disagreement with each other and even their skewed views of the literature are not due to conflicts of interest beyond what may be due to the usual loyalty we tend to feel for our professional fields—which of course are also our source of income. In this scientific dispute, most public health nutrition people might be assumed to have some kind of bias on the diet side, and most in sports nutrition might be assumed to have a bias in the other direction. In most contexts, we would not call those differences in perspectives evidence of conflicts of interest.

However, suppose a company producing weightlifting equipment funds a research program for Prof Smith comparing the effectiveness of aerobic exercise with increasing muscle mass for reducing many non-communicable diseases. Smith warns them their money will not influence his views. But nevertheless, if he publishes a paper weighing the evidence for which type of exercise is best for overall health, he should declare a conflict of interest. His views and what he writes may not have changed at all. But his credibility as an objective expert on this aerobics vs muscle mass issue has changed.

Now suppose a food advocacy group funds Prof Alvarez' research program on the impact of ultra-processed food. This funding may not have changed her views, her research objectivity, or even the subtleties of how she expresses herself on the diet vs exercise issue. But now she must declare a potential conflict of interest and her credibility must be viewed within this context.

The existence of a conflict of interest does not mean that someone is corrupt. They might not have allowed this CoI to influence what they think, how they do their research, or what they write. But the risk is there. The perception that this conflict MIGHT influence them is unavoidable.

A good deal of research does suggest that many researchers allow CoI to influence not only their judgement but something about how they do, analyze or report research. For example, published studies by drug companies routinely report a higher efficacy for those drugs than studies of the same drugs funded by others. Being suspicious of authors with CoI is not the same as drawing conclusions about the integrity of any particular author, but it is important to be aware of the risks CoI pose.

                Journal policy

All authors who submit manuscripts to be considered for publication in World Nutrition are asked to provide detailed information about all conflicting interests related to the topics of the manuscript.

These would be relevant financial interests, activities, relationships, and affiliations including, but not limited to, employment, funding and grants received or pending, consultancies, honoraria, membership in speakers' bureaus, stock ownership and options, expert testimony, royalties, and patents planned, pending, or issued. These disclosures should describe any potential conflicts of interest involving the work under consideration for publication (during the time involving the work, from initial conception and planning to present), any relevant financial activities outside the submitted work (over the 5 years prior to submission), and any other relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing what is written in the submitted work (based on all relationships that were present during the 5 years prior to submission).

Authors who are uncertain about what constitutes a relevant financial interest or relationship for an individual author or relevant support for the work being reported should err on the side of complete disclosure, or contact the editorial office for clarification.

For all accepted manuscripts, summaries of the CoIs will be published in an Acknowledgment section of the article to ensure they are disclosed to readers.

World Nutrition will, at its discretion, consider publishing papers whose authors have only minor conflicts of interest. However, if CoIs are judged to be so severe that the integrity of the article is in doubt, the manuscript may be rejected for that reason alone or published with a simultaneous commentary about that CoI and/or presenting an opposing point of view.

Once their paper is published, authors are encouraged to offer a copy on Research Gate, Academia, and to announce it, providing a link to it on Facebook, Twitter, and other websites to spread awareness of your work. There are no limitations to what you do with your published paper because you retain all copyrights. For example, many authors wish to deposit a copy of their paper in an institutional or other repository of their choice. Our policy is that authors may deposit:

• Submitted version
• Accepted version (Author Accepted Manuscript)
• Published version (Version of Record)

 in an institutional or other repository of their choice without embargo.

Publication Ethics and Retraction Policy

Research on human subjects or animals must include a statement that an institutional research board/ethics committee has approved your research in advance or waved it. Indicate the name of the IRB. Approval is not needed for secondary analyses, project evaluations, and data obtained via routine project monitoring. 

World Nutrition follows COPE guidelines. Most relevant publication ethical issues are addressed above. The process for dealing with undisclosed conflicts of interest if discovered can be found here. Papers found to be based on plagiarism, series errors, or falsification will be retracted. Guidelines for this process are available here. We take plagiarism seriously. We define it as copying a sentence or more from another author. We ask that you avoid copying too much even from your own previously published work. Our methods for dealing with it are illustrated here.

World Nutrition operates the following policy for making corrections to its peer-reviewed content. Publishable amendments must be represented by a formal online notice because they affect the publication record and/or the scientific accuracy of published information. These fall into one of three categories: erratum, corrigendum or retraction.

Erratum: Notification of an important error made by the journal that affects the publication record or the scientific integrity of a paper, or the reputation of the authors or the journal.

Corrigendum : Notification of an important error made by the author(s) that affects the publication record or the scientific integrity of the paper, or the reputation of the authors or the journal.

Retraction: Notification of invalid results. All co-authors sign a retraction specifying the error, stating briefly how the conclusions are affected, and submit it for publication. In cases where one or more co-authors disagree, the publishing team will seek advice from independent referees and utilize the type of amendment that seems most appropriate, noting the dissenting author(s) in the text of the published version.

If you use a large language model, including ChatGPT to write part of your paper, please indicate this in your methods section.