Peer reviewers are entrusted with a critical role: to ensure that research published in AFNS is original, rigorous, ethical, and valuable to the field. These responsibilities uphold the trust of authors, readers, and the scientific community, and ensure the integrity of the scholarly record.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. Content may not be shared, discussed, or used for personal research until the work is publicly available. Reviewer identities remain protected under AFNS’s double-blind review system.

Objectivity and Fairness

Reviews should be unbiased and grounded in scholarly evidence. Reviewers must avoid personal criticism and ensure that feedback is professional, constructive, and aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript.

Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to deliver evaluations within the agreed timeframe. If delays are unavoidable, reviewers should inform the editor promptly so alternate arrangements can be made to prevent holding up the publication process.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess manuscripts on the basis of:

• Originality: Novelty and contribution to the field.
• Scientific Soundness: Validity of methodology and robustness of data analysis.
• Clarity: Quality of writing, structure, and logical flow.
• Ethical Standards: Compliance with ethical approvals, informed consent, and humane research practices.
• Relevance: Appropriateness to the journal’s aims and scope.

Constructive Feedback

Reviewer reports should provide authors with clear guidance for improvement. Effective reviews:

• Highlight strengths as well as weaknesses.
• Differentiate between essential revisions and optional suggestions.
• Offer evidence-based critiques, citing relevant literature when appropriate.
• Remain professional and respectful in tone.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline invitations where personal, financial, or professional conflicts exist. Examples include recent collaborations with the authors, direct competition, or institutional affiliations that may bias judgment.

Ethical Vigilance

Reviewers are responsible for flagging potential ethical issues such as:

• Plagiarism or duplicate publication.
• Data fabrication, falsification, or questionable methodologies.
• Lack of informed consent or inadequate ethical approvals.
• Improper use of copyrighted material without attribution.

Suspicions should be reported confidentially to the editorial office, not shared with authors directly.

Respect for the Scholarly Community

Reviewers contribute to the advancement of science by mentoring authors through constructive criticism and by helping ensure that published research meets the highest standards. Their service reflects a commitment to academic integrity and to the collective progress of food and nutritional science.

Recognition of Reviewer Contributions

AFNS acknowledges the invaluable contributions of reviewers through certificates of recognition, annual acknowledgments, and eligibility for awards. By volunteering their expertise, reviewers strengthen the journal and the scientific community.

Conclusion

Reviewer responsibilities extend beyond evaluation—they represent a professional and ethical duty to the broader academic community. By adhering to these responsibilities, reviewers ensure that AFNS remains a platform of integrity, fairness, and excellence.