--- name: brycewang-stanford/trends-in-food-science-and-technology source: https://app.decimal.ai/s/brycewang-stanford-trends-in-food-science-and-technology@1/SKILL.md source_sha256: 977dc8891aa6 --- # Trends in Food Science & Technology (trends-in-food-science-and-technology) ## Journal positioning Trends in Food Science & Technology is the Elsevier review and synthesis journal for food science and technology — critical reviews, trend analyses, and opinion that frame the state and direction of a field. Its defining expectation is **critical synthesis, not new primary data**: a comprehensive, evaluative account that integrates the existing literature, identifies what is settled and what is contested, and points to research gaps and emerging directions. A manuscript whose core contribution is original experimental results is the single largest desk-reject risk here, regardless of quality. 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 Trends in Food Science & Technology guidance. ## When to trigger - The author names Trends in Food Science & Technology and wants a fit check for a review or trend article in food science. - A body of primary work needs to be re-framed as a critical, gap-identifying synthesis rather than submitted as a primary-research paper. - The author is choosing between a review venue and a primary-research food journal, or is unsure whether their topic is "review-ready." - The author needs this journal's comprehensiveness/critical-synthesis bar and desk-reject heuristics. ## Scope & topic fit - Critical reviews across food chemistry, processing, engineering, microbiology, nutrition, safety, packaging, and sustainability that evaluate rather than merely catalog the literature. - Trend and forward-looking articles on emerging technologies, ingredients, or paradigms (e.g., novel processing, alternative proteins, clean-label, digital/food-tech). - Methodological or conceptual syntheses that reconcile conflicting findings and propose a framework or research agenda. - Systematic or scoping reviews and meta-analyses with a transparent, reproducible search and selection protocol. - Cross-cutting topics connecting food technology to health, sustainability, or regulation when treated as a synthesis for a broad food-science readership. - Authoritative tutorials on a maturing technique only when they add critical evaluation, not a how-to manual. ## Method & evidence bar - The contribution is the **synthesis**: coverage must be comprehensive and current, with balanced treatment of competing evidence rather than a one-sided narrative. - For systematic reviews/meta-analyses, the search strategy, databases, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and (where relevant) risk-of-bias assessment must be explicit and reproducible. - Claims about "trends" need evidence — citation patterns, technological trajectories, or documented adoption — not assertion. - The review must add analytical value: critical comparison, a new organizing framework, reconciliation of contradictions, and clearly stated research gaps. - Original experimental data are not the contribution; small confirmatory data, if present, must be subordinate to the synthesis and never the central claim. - Citations should be primary and current; over-reliance on prior reviews or stale literature undermines the comprehensiveness bar. ## Structure & house style - Review/trend-article format with a clear conceptual architecture; re-check current article types and length expectations on the live guide. - The introduction must define the scope, justify why a review is needed now, and state the organizing question — not open with a primary-study rationale. - Use synthesis devices: comparison tables, framework figures, and timelines that integrate sources, rather than figures reporting the authors' own raw measurements. - A dedicated "future directions / research gaps" treatment is expected, with specific, actionable open questions. - 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 Trends in Food Science & Technology page you checked. - Search the live site for "Trends in Food Science & Technology guide for authors" and follow the current Elsevier version. - Confirm that the manuscript type is a review/trend article and re-check accepted article types and length. - For systematic reviews, re-check whether a reporting standard (e.g., a PRISMA-style protocol) is expected. - Re-check graphical-abstract/highlights specifications and any pre-submission proposal/abstract step. - 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 - [ ] The core contribution is critical synthesis, not original experimental results. - [ ] Literature coverage is comprehensive, current, and balanced across competing views. - [ ] Any systematic review reports a transparent, reproducible search and selection protocol. - [ ] The review adds a framework, reconciliation, or comparison beyond cataloging sources. - [ ] A specific, actionable research-gaps / future-directions section is present. - [ ] Highlights and graphical abstract are prepared per the live guide. ## Common desk-reject triggers - A primary-research manuscript (the experimental results are the contribution) submitted as a review. - A "review" that merely lists and paraphrases studies without critical evaluation or a framework. - Narrow or outdated coverage, or heavy reliance on previous reviews instead of primary sources. - Systematic-review claims with an opaque or unreproducible search and selection process. - A vague "future trends" narrative unsupported by evidence of the trajectory. - Scope mismatch: a topic too niche or too settled to warrant a broad-audience critical review. ## Re-routing decision - Original food-chemistry data is the contribution → `food-chemistry`. - Food-systems-significance synthesis for the Nature audience → `nature-food`. - Sustainability/cleaner-production review framing → `journal-of-cleaner-production`. - Invited, authoritative environment-and-resources synthesis → `annual-review-of-environment-and-resources`. - Contaminant/pollution-impact review → `environmental-pollution`. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Trends in Food Science & Technology [Topic tags] <2–3 closest food-science review topics> [Synthesis contribution] [Review rigor] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check]
[Re-route suggestion] ```