Athenaeum Scientific Publishers is committed to upholding the highest standards of editorial integrity, transparency, and ethical practice in scholarly publishing. These Editorial Policies describe the responsibilities of editors and reviewers and outline the processes that guide editorial decision-making in our journals. Ethical standards related to authorship, research integrity, and misconduct are addressed in our Publication Ethics Policy.

1. Editorial Independence and Responsibility

Editorial decisions are based solely on the scientific quality, originality, validity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts. Editors act independently of commercial, political, or personal considerations. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over editorial content and decisions, including acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts.

Editors must:

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively and impartially, regardless of authors’ race, gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, or other non-scientific factors.
• Maintain accountabilities for all published content and ensure that published work meets the journal’s quality standards and ethical requirements.
• Ensure continuous improvement of the journal’s editorial processes.

2. Peer Review and Editorial Process

All manuscripts undergo a rigorous editorial assessment and peer review in accordance with discipline-appropriate standards and COPE guidance.

2.1 Initial Editorial Screening

Submissions are first screened for scope, completeness, ethical compliance, and basic scientific quality. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned without peer review.

2.2 Peer Review

Peer review is conducted by qualified experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on expertise and absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations that address the originality, methodology, ethical compliance, clarity, and significance of the work.

Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents and must not disclose or use information contained within them outside the review process.

2.3 Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions (acceptance, revision, or rejection) are based on reviewer reports, editorial judgment, and the journal’s standards. Authors are provided with clear, constructive feedback to help improve the manuscript where revisions are required.

3. Roles and Responsibilities

3.1 Editors

Editors are responsible for managing the peer review process fairly, efficiently, and transparently. They must:

• Recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists.
• Safeguard the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts.
• Ensure consistency in application of editorial policies.
• Act promptly to correct or retract published content if ethical concerns arise.

3.1.1 Editor-in-Chief Appointment Term and Governance

The Editor-in-Chief is appointed for a fixed term of three (3) years, renewable based on performance, compliance with editorial standards, and mutual agreement. To uphold editorial independence, transparency, and best governance practices, leadership rotation may be implemented in accordance with the journal’s governance policies.

3.2 Reviewers

Reviewers play a critical role in assessing manuscripts. They must:

• Provide unbiased, thorough, and transparent evaluations.
• Decline review invitations if a conflict of interest exists.
• Maintain confidentiality and ethical integrity throughout the review process.

All editorial appointments are subject to periodic review in accordance with the journal’s governance policies.

4. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could influence their decision-making. Conflicts may be financial, personal, academic, or professional in nature. Where a conflict exists, the individual must be recused from the editorial process and an alternative editor or reviewer appointed.

5. Confidentiality

All submissions are treated as confidential. Editors and reviewers must not share information regarding manuscripts with individuals outside the editorial and review process, except where required for ethical investigation or administrative purposes.

6. Misconduct and Ethical Concerns

Allegations of research or publication misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical violations, are taken seriously and investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines and the journal’s Publication Ethics Policy. Appropriate corrective actions, such as errata, expressions of concern, or retractions, will be taken when necessary.

7. Corrections and Retractions

To preserve the integrity of the scholarly record, errors that affect the interpretation or validity of an article will be corrected promptly through formal notices. Retractions may be issued for invalid or unethical work, in accordance with COPE principles.

8. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe an editorial decision was made unfairly may submit a formal appeal with supporting evidence. Appeals are reviewed by senior editorial members not involved in the original decision. The outcome of an appeal does not guarantee reversal of the initial decision.

9. Continuous Improvement

The Publisher and Editorial Boards regularly review editorial policies and procedures to align with evolving best practices, ensure compliance with ethical standards, and enhance the quality and integrity of published research.

This journal follows the ethical principles and best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including transparent peer review, editorial independence, and the principled handling of misconduct.