Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Understanding the development of the food system requires a system view that captures the complexity of the system and its many interrelationships with its economic, social and natural environments. The Journal accepts and offers papers within this broad range of issues focussing on the management, policy, marketing, consumer aspects, transparency, e-commerce, institutional or regional development, information and communication systems, ressource economics, production economics, chain management, network economics, and similar aspects. Papers may focus on modeling, empirical research or theoretical analyis. This broad range of publication opportunities asks authors to follow clear lines of arguments and to present arguments in a convincing way that avoids unnecessary complexities of model formulations if not relevant for the support of arguments.

The publication of scientific articles is complemented by a number of sections that provide room for publications with a more specific focus:

'Case studies': A section on case studies of the 'Harvard Type' allows the publication of studies that might build on established scientific methodology but demonstrate its use in ceratin decision environments. Case studies might be complemented by 'teaching cases' that are kept on a database outside the journal but accessible to readers on approval by authors.
'Research Forum': It allows to discuss newly emerging research challenges or to contribute to ongoing scientific discussions on research problems. In addition, authors might initiate a discussion on issues brought up by articles published in the journal.
'Research Notes': It provides room for specific shorter scientific contributions with a narrow scope.
'Studies on Knowledge Management': With the increasing digitalization of economic activities, a broad range of knowledge management initiatives and tools are of increasing relevance for the sustainability and competitiveness of the food sector and its actors.
'Book Reviews': It provides readers with an overview on scientific publications related to the subject of the journal.


Section Policies


Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Research Articles

  • Gerhard Schiefer
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Research Forum

  • Gerhard Schiefer
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Research Notes

  • Gerhard Schiefer
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Studies

  • Gerhard Schiefer
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Studies on Knowledge Management

  • Gerhard Schiefer
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Book Reviews

  • Gerhard Schiefer
Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Country special

This section publishes studies with a specific focus on coutry developments

  • Gerhard Schiefer
Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

The journal is a peer reviewed publication with a strong dedication to scientific clarity and objectivity. All research papers (except editorials) are being reviewed by at least 2 independent and experienced referees and the responsible editor. Referees involve members of the editorial board and, depending on the subject of the papers, referees with established credentials in the field.


Publication Frequency

The journal publishes 4 issues per year. The individual articles of issues are being made available to readers by the time the review process has been completed successfully.


Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.



This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...


Thematic alternatives

Selection of thematic alternatives

Economics and Policy
Management and Organization
Chains and Networks
Consumers and Markets
Globalization and Regionalization
System Analysis
System Innovation and Dynamics
Scenario Research
Sustainability and Transparency
Science and Technology
Information and Communication


Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Publication decisions
The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.
The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play
An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.