Peer review lies at the core of scholarly publishing. At AFNS, it is more than a procedural step—it is a collective responsibility to safeguard the quality, fairness, and credibility of the scientific record. This policy explains how the peer review process is conducted and what values guide it.

Review Model

AFNS employs a double-blind peer review system. The identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential, protecting impartiality and reducing bias. All manuscripts undergo preliminary editorial screening before being sent to external reviewers.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are chosen based on subject expertise, publication history, and absence of conflicts of interest. Each manuscript is typically evaluated by two or more independent reviewers, ensuring a balanced assessment.

Evaluation Criteria

• Originality and contribution to the field.
• Scientific soundness of methodology and analysis.
• Clarity of presentation and logical flow.
• Ethical compliance, including human and animal research approvals.
• Relevance to the aims and scope of AFNS.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, respectful, and evidence-based feedback. Confidentiality must be upheld, and reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest. Reports should highlight both strengths and weaknesses, guiding authors toward improvement.

Decision Outcomes

Based on reviewer feedback and editorial judgment, decisions fall into the following categories:

• Accept: Manuscript is suitable for publication with minimal changes.
• Minor Revision: Manuscript requires small clarifications or improvements.
• Major Revision: Significant modifications are needed before reconsideration.
• Reject: Manuscript does not meet standards for publication.

Timelines

AFNS aims to provide initial decisions within 4–6 weeks of submission. Reviewers are asked to return their reports within 14–21 days, balancing thoroughness with efficiency to respect authors’ time.

Appeals Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned response to the editorial office. Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor or an independent board member, ensuring fairness and accountability.

Ethical Oversight

Cases of suspected misconduct, such as plagiarism, data falsification, or duplicate submission, are handled following COPE guidelines. Editors may seek clarification from authors, reviewers, or institutions to resolve concerns.

Transparency and Accountability

While the process is confidential, AFNS is committed to transparency in decision-making. Authors receive detailed feedback, and corrections, retractions, or updates are issued where necessary to maintain the integrity of the scientific record.

Conclusion

The peer review policy reflects AFNS’s dedication to fairness, rigor, and respect. By ensuring that each article is judged impartially and constructively, the journal affirms its mission: to advance knowledge in food and nutritional science with integrity and openness.