Athenaeum Scientific Publishers is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly integrity through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. Peer review is central to ensuring the quality, validity, and originality of the research we publish.

This Peer Review Policy is developed in accordance with the best practices and principles recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Peer Review Model

All journals published by Athenaeum Scientific Publishers follow a double-blind peer review process, unless otherwise stated on the individual journal website.

In a double-blind peer review system:

• The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers
• The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors

This approach ensures objectivity, impartiality, and fairness throughout the evaluation process.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening to assess:

• Alignment with the journal’s scope
• Compliance with submission guidelines
• Ethical standards and research integrity
• Basic scientific and technical quality

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external peer review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Editors assign manuscripts to independent expert reviewers based on:

• Subject-matter expertise
• Research experience
• Absence of conflicts of interest

Reviewers are invited to assess manuscripts only after confirming that no conflict of interest exists.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Treat manuscripts as confidential documents
• Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations
• Declare any conflicts of interest promptly
• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal or professional advantage.

5. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

• Originality and novelty
• Scientific validity and methodological rigor
• Ethical compliance
• Clarity, structure, and presentation
• Relevance to the journal’s scope

Reviewer comments are intended to assist authors in improving the quality of their work.

“In exceptional cases where suitable external reviewers are unavailable, the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief may conduct the peer review and make an editorial decision, provided that no conflict of interest exists and the evaluation follows the journal’s established review criteria.”

6. Editorial Decision-Making

Editorial decisions are based on:

• Reviewer reports
• Editorial judgment
• The journal’s quality and ethical standards

Possible decisions include:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Editorial decisions are independent of publication charges or commercial considerations.

“Final editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or delegated Associate Editors based on reviewer recommendations and editorial judgment.”

7. Author Revisions

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

• A revised manuscript
• A detailed, point-by-point response to reviewer comments

Revised manuscripts may be sent for further peer review at the Editor’s discretion.

8. Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated as strictly confidential. Information related to a manuscript is shared only with individuals directly involved in the editorial process.

9. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, academic, or personal conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment. Where conflicts exist, appropriate measures are taken to ensure impartial handling of the manuscript.

10. Ethical Oversight and Misconduct

Suspected ethical issues, including plagiarism, data manipulation, or unethical research practices, are investigated in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics Policy and COPE guidelines.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that the peer review process was not conducted fairly may submit a formal appeal. Appeals are reviewed by senior editorial members not involved in the original decision.

This journal follows the principles and best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for peer review, editorial decision-making, and ethical oversight.