A consequence of our rising Impact Factor is a large increase in new submissions to Nutrients. Whilst it is pleasing to see so many high quality articles now being published, an accompanying increase in poorer quality submissions is placing a greater burden on our editorial system and causing frustration for authors, editors and reviewers alike, especially in cases where a manuscript is rejected after undergoing a full peer review. It is in the interest of all parties, therefore, that intending authors adhere to the journal’s Instructions to Authors and conventional standards of publication for original articles in their field of research (e.g. the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors proffer suitable standards for clinical research) and that the preliminary editorial evaluation of new submissions is sufficiently rigorous to ensure that sub-standard manuscripts do not proceed to peer review.

For the purpose of preliminary evaluation, keywords are used to direct manuscripts to editors with expertise in the relevant field of research. It is essential, therefore, that authors select keywords that appropriately reflect the content of their submission and that editors regularly review their own keywords to ensure that they accurately reflect their current expertise. In determining whether or not a manuscript should proceed to peer review, editors are asked to consider several criteria, including but not limited to the following: novelty of content; potential impact in the relevant field of research; standard of English usage; suitability for Nutrients. Where appropriate, limited feedback may be provided to authors if their manuscript is deemed unsuitable for peer review.

We thank you for your cooperation and continuing support of Nutrients.

Peter Howe & Jon Buckley
Joint Editors-in-Chief