Nutrition Reviews
Scientific journals.
Nutrition Reviews is a monthly peer-reviewed medical journal publishing review articles in the field of nutrition science. It was established by the Nutrition Foundation of New York City under the leadership of Charles Glen King in 1942 and was acquired by Oxford University Press in 2015. The editor-in-chief is Douglas Taren (The University of Arizona). According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2017 impact factor of 5.788, ranking it 6th out of 81 journals in the category "Nutrition & Dietetics".
The journal is published on behalf of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), an organization "set up in 1978 by a former executive from Coca-Cola, to push for its agenda in the scientific and policy spaces". It has been found that it publishes the highest proportion of articles with industry involvement amongst the top top 10 journals in nutrition.
The public source identifies “Nutrition Reviews” as scientific journals. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Nutrition, Reviews and Scientific.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Nutrition Reviews”, the useful work is to connect “scientific journals” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Stable identifiers, scientific names and standards terminology offer the best bridge between this overview and specialist evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 23, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q15765213. 6 of 6 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1942, 2015, 2017 and 1978.
Current terminology should not be projected backward without checking the classification used when the underlying evidence was created. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Nutrition Reviews”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Nutrition Reviews primary sources, Nutrition Reviews archive and Nutrition research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Nutrition Reviews”?
- Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Nutrition Reviews” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.