How publishing works in this field
Analytical methods are expected to be standard and cited as such — AOAC, ISO or an equivalent official method — or, where a method is modified or novel, validated with recovery, limits of detection and quantification, precision and linearity reported. Reviewers in this field check that the method can actually measure what the paper claims.
Sensory work has its own requirements: panel size and screening, whether assessors were trained or consumers, the test design, serving order and randomisation, booth conditions, and ethics approval with informed consent. Human participants eating a test product is human-subjects research, and journals treat it as such.
What slows papers down here
Shelf-life claims draw the most consistent objection. Accelerated testing does not establish real-time stability without a validated kinetic model, and storage studies need the temperature, humidity, packaging and light conditions reported alongside the microbiological and chemical endpoints.
Sample independence is the quiet methodological problem — measuring one batch three times is triplicate analysis, not three replicates, and the distinction changes the statistics entirely.
Worth reading next
Questions we are asked in this field
Yes, in almost all cases. Participants are consuming a product, so journals expect institutional approval, informed consent, allergen disclosure and a statement on how withdrawal was handled. This is one of the commonest production-stage queries in the field.
Yes, if you validate it. Report recovery, limits of detection and quantification, precision and linearity, and compare against the official method where one exists. An unvalidated in-house method is the usual reason a compositional result is not accepted.
There is no universal number, but the replicates must be independent — separate batches or production runs, not repeated measurements of one sample. State clearly which you did; reviewers read this closely and conflating the two invalidates the analysis.