food-chemistry

name	food-chemistry
description	Use when targeting Food Chemistry or deciding whether a food-chemistry manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the analytical-rigor and chemical-mechanism bar, method-validation expectations, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.

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

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Food Chemistry
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest food-chemistry topics>
[Chemical advance] <the compositional/mechanistic/analytical insight, not just the matrix>
[Method/evidence] <does validation + quantification + identification clear Food Chemistry's bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / highlights / graphical abstract / data policy / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>