Peer Review Process

Peer review is the foundation of scholarly publishing. AFNS employs a double-blind peer review system designed to ensure fairness, objectivity, and rigor. This page explains the process from submission to final decision, highlighting how reviewers, editors, and authors interact throughout.

1. Submission and Initial Screening

When a manuscript is submitted, the editorial office conducts an initial screening to verify:

  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
  • Compliance with formatting and submission guidelines.
  • Originality and absence of plagiarism (checked using similarity detection tools).
  • Inclusion of ethical approvals and conflict of interest disclosures where required.

Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria may be returned to authors without external review.

2. Assignment to an Editor

Submissions that pass screening are assigned to an associate editor with relevant subject expertise. The editor manages the review process and selects suitable peer reviewers.

3. Reviewer Selection

At least two independent reviewers are invited to evaluate each manuscript. Reviewers are chosen based on:

  • Expertise in the subject area.
  • Absence of conflicts of interest.
  • Track record of providing timely and thorough reviews.
  • Diversity in geography, institution, and career stage.

4. Double-Blind Review

In AFNS’s double-blind system:

  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.
  • Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.

This reduces bias and ensures impartial evaluation.

5. Reviewer Reports

Reviewers provide structured reports addressing originality, methods, results, interpretation, and presentation. They recommend one of the following:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable with minimal or no revision.
  • Minor Revision: Revisions required but not substantial.
  • Major Revision: Significant changes needed; manuscript must be re-reviewed.
  • Reject: Manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards.

6. Editorial Decision

The handling editor synthesizes reviewer feedback and makes a recommendation to the editor-in-chief, who issues the final decision. Decisions are communicated clearly to authors with reviewer comments attached.

7. Revisions

If revisions are requested, authors must address each reviewer comment thoroughly and resubmit a revised manuscript. Editors and, where necessary, reviewers will re-assess the revised version.

8. Final Acceptance and Publication

Once accepted, manuscripts undergo copyediting, typesetting, and proofing. A DOI is assigned, and the Version of Record is published online. The article is then indexed and archived in long-term preservation systems.

Ethical Oversight

Editors and reviewers are expected to alert the journal to suspected misconduct, including plagiarism, redundant publication, or data falsification. AFNS adheres to COPE guidelines in addressing ethical concerns.

Conclusion

AFNS’s peer review process ensures that every published article has undergone rigorous, unbiased evaluation. By maintaining transparency and fairness, the process strengthens the reliability of the journal as a platform for advancing food and nutritional science.

Schema.org metadata embedded below.