Peer reviewers play an essential role in safeguarding the quality and credibility of published research. AFNS relies on the expertise, fairness, and dedication of reviewers to provide constructive evaluations that help authors improve their work and ensure that only high-quality research enters the scholarly record.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Evaluate the manuscript objectively, focusing on scientific merit, originality, and clarity.
• Provide constructive feedback that assists authors in improving their work.
• Respect confidentiality and not share manuscript content with others.
• Declare any conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation.
• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or notify the editor promptly if unavailable.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers must not use information gained through peer review for personal research or advantage. Identities of reviewers are protected under AFNS’s double-blind review policy.

Criteria for Evaluation

Reviewers should consider the following aspects when assessing a manuscript:

• Originality: Does the study address a novel question or provide new insights?
• Scientific Rigor: Are the methods sound and appropriately applied?
• Clarity: Is the manuscript well-written and logically structured?
• Ethical Standards: Are ethical approvals and informed consent clearly stated where applicable?
• Relevance: Does the study align with the journal’s scope and contribute to the field?

Providing Constructive Feedback

Reviewer comments should be professional, respectful, and aimed at helping authors strengthen their work. Feedback should:

• Highlight strengths as well as weaknesses.
• Suggest specific improvements or clarifications.
• Avoid personal remarks or dismissive language.
• Distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline invitations where conflicts of interest exist, such as prior collaborations with the authors, financial interests, or competitive relationships. Transparency ensures fairness in the evaluation process.

Timeliness

Reviews must be completed within the timeframe agreed upon. If additional time is needed, reviewers should contact the editorial office as soon as possible. Late reviews may delay publication and impact authors’ work.

Ethical Vigilance

Reviewers should alert editors if they suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, unethical research practices, or significant overlap with other publications. AFNS follows COPE guidelines in investigating and addressing concerns.

Reviewer Recognition

AFNS values the contributions of its reviewers. Recognition may include certificates of appreciation, acknowledgment in annual reports, and eligibility for outstanding reviewer awards.

Reviewers uphold the integrity of scholarly publishing by offering thoughtful, unbiased, and constructive evaluations. By adhering to these guidelines, reviewers support authors in refining their research while strengthening the trustworthiness of AFNS as a journal of record.