--- name: brycewang-stanford/food-chemistry source: https://app.decimal.ai/s/brycewang-stanford-food-chemistry@1/SKILL.md source_sha256: 4399d0ef76ba --- # Food Chemistry (food-chemistry) ## Journal positioning Food Chemistry is the Elsevier journal for the chemistry and biochemistry of foods — composition, bioactive and functional compounds, food analysis and authentication, the chemistry of processing and storage, and food safety and contaminants. Its defining expectation is **rigorous analytical chemistry that yields chemical insight**: a quantified compositional or mechanistic result obtained with properly validated methods, adequate controls, and defensible quantification. A descriptive screening study with poorly validated methods, no quantification, or no chemical-mechanism interpretation is a weak fit, however topical the food matrix. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current author guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Food Chemistry submission guidance. ## When to trigger - The author names Food Chemistry and wants a fit/framing check for a food-chemistry paper. - A compositional, bioactive-compound, or food-analysis result must be re-framed around its chemical mechanism or analytical advance rather than a single product survey. - The author is choosing between Food Chemistry, a food-technology venue, and an analytical-chemistry journal. - The author needs Food Chemistry's method-validation bar and its desk-reject heuristics. ## Scope & topic fit - Food composition and structure: macro/micronutrients, lipids, proteins, carbohydrates, phytochemicals, and their changes during processing and storage. - Bioactive and functional compounds: identification, quantification, bioaccessibility, and structure–activity relationships, with chemistry (not only an in-vitro assay) at the core. - Food analysis and authentication: chromatography, mass spectrometry, spectroscopy, metabolomics/foodomics, and chemometric or fingerprinting methods for origin/adulteration. - Chemistry of processing and reactions: Maillard, oxidation, enzymatic and fermentation chemistry, and the formation or loss of flavor, color, and nutrient compounds. - Food safety chemistry: contaminants, residues, mycotoxins, process-induced toxicants, and their detection, fate, and mitigation with quantitative chemical evidence. - Flavor, color, and sensory-linked chemistry when tied to identified compounds and concentrations. ## Method & evidence bar - Analytical methods must be **validated and reported**: linearity, LOD/LOQ, recovery, precision, and matrix effects appropriate to the technique; instrument conditions stated. - Quantification is expected — peak areas, "relative abundance," or untargeted detection without calibration and concentrations rarely suffices for a compositional claim. - Compound identification must meet accepted confidence criteria (e.g., authentic standards, accurate mass, MS/MS fragmentation, retention behavior), not name-by-library-hit alone. - Adequate controls and replication: blanks, matrix-matched standards, biological/analytical replicates, and statistics suited to the design (not pseudoreplicated single batches). - Chemometric and authentication models need validation on independent samples and protection against overfitting; report cross-validation and class sizes. - Mechanistic or structure–activity claims must be supported by direct chemical evidence, not inferred solely from a correlation between a crude extract and a bioassay. ## Structure & house style - Standard research-article format (introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion, conclusion); re-check current article types and length on the live guide. - Introduction must state the chemical/analytical gap and why this food matrix or compound class matters chemically, not merely that the product is popular or healthy. - Methods must be reproducible: reagents, instrument parameters, calibration, and validation data sufficient for another lab to repeat the analysis. - Figures carry the analytical evidence — annotated chromatograms/spectra, calibration and recovery data, and dose/structure relationships; raw identification support belongs in SI. - Graphical abstract and highlights are expected; re-check current specifications on the live guide. ## Official-submission checklist - Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the Elsevier anchors, then cite the current Food Chemistry page you checked. - Search the live site for "Food Chemistry guide for authors" and follow the current Elsevier version. - Re-check article types (research, review, short communication), length, and the graphical-abstract/highlights requirements. - Confirm method-validation reporting expectations and any compound-identification confidence criteria. - Re-check data-availability, raw-spectra/chromatogram deposition, and supplementary-data policy. - Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, and AI-use disclosure, and open-access terms. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] Analytical methods are validated (linearity, LOD/LOQ, recovery, precision) and the data are reported. - [ ] Quantitative concentrations — not just detection or relative abundance — support the compositional claim. - [ ] Compound identifications meet accepted confidence criteria, not library hits alone. - [ ] Controls, blanks, and genuine replication are present, with statistics matched to the design. - [ ] Any mechanism or structure–activity claim rests on direct chemical evidence. - [ ] Highlights, graphical abstract, and reproducible methods are prepared per the live guide. ## Common desk-reject triggers - Descriptive screening of a product with no quantification and no validated method. - Compound identifications by library match alone, without standards or MS/MS confirmation. - Bioactivity claims from a crude extract and one assay, with no chemistry or dose response. - Untargeted "fingerprinting" or chemometric models with no independent validation (overfit). - Process or composition study run on a single batch presented as a general result. - Scope mismatch: a food-engineering, sensory-only, or formulation paper with no food-chemistry advance. ## Re-routing decision - Review/critical synthesis rather than primary data → `trends-in-food-science-and-technology`. - Food-systems significance beyond the chemistry → `nature-food`. - Contaminant fate/transport and environmental impact emphasis → `environmental-pollution`. - Exposure-to-health, dietary-contaminant epidemiology framing → `environment-international`. - Pure analytical-method development for general matrices → an analytical-chemistry venue (e.g., `analytical-chemistry`). ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Food Chemistry [Topic tags] <2–3 closest food-chemistry topics> [Chemical advance] [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check]
[Re-route suggestion] ```