Even when research findings are strong, meaningful, and highly applicable to everyday nutrition, they don’t always make it into top nutrition journals. This may surprise many readers, but several practical, financial, and systemic reasons contribute to this problem.

Here are some key reasons:

1. High Publication Costs

Top journals often charge:

• High submission fees
• High publication fees
• Additional open-access fees

Researchers, especially independent groups, small institutions, or those studying traditional foods may not have the budget to publish.

2. Lack of Funding for Non-Commercial Topics

If research focuses on:

• Traditional foods
• Natural ingredients
• Culturally used herbs
• Homemade preparations

…there is no commercial sponsor to support it.

Companies fund research only when they can profit from the outcome.
Natural foods cannot be patented → no financial return → no funding → fewer publications.

3. Journals Prefer “Novelty” Over Practical Findings

Core nutrition journals often prioritize:

• Trendy topics
• New ingredients
• Genetic or molecular nutrition
• High-tech or pharmaceutical-based studies

But practical, everyday foods even if proven effective may be rejected for being “too simple,” “not novel,” or “not modern.”

4. Traditional Foods Are Considered “Low Priority”

Researchers may hesitate to submit studies on:

• Spices
• Millets
• Curd/buttermilk
• Seasonal vegetables
• Traditional cooking methods

These topics are often labeled as:

• Too common
• Not scientifically innovative
• Hard to standardize

Even if they show great results, journals may not see them as “high impact.”

5. Research Design Limitations

Good-quality research on traditional foods is often:

• Long-term
• Community-based
• hard to isolate the effect of a single food in a study

Because of these practical challenges, many such studies don’t meet the strict criteria of top-tier journals even if the findings are very meaningful.

6. Pressure Toward Industry-Supported Research

Many high-impact journals prefer:

• Well-funded studies
• Larger sample sizes
• Sophisticated lab testing
• Technology-backed interventions

Industry-funded studies can easily meet these criteria.
Traditional-food research often cannot.

7. Negative or Neutral Findings Are Rarely Published

If the results are:

• Neutral
• Not dramatic
• Not commercially interesting

They often don’t get accepted. This means valuable real-life results may go unpublished.

8. Bias Toward Western Dietary Patterns

Many international nutrition journals prioritize:

• Western dietary models
• Western ingredients
• Western-style interventions

Cultural foods from India, Asia, or local communities may be overlooked simply due to lack of familiarity.

The Insight That Counts

Strong, practical, and culturally meaningful nutrition research often remains unpublished not because it lacks value, but because the system is expensive, commercially driven, and biased toward “new” or “profitable” topics.
This is why combining science + tradition + clinical experience gives the most reliable guidance.