Review Process

Peer Review Policy

Athena: Journal of Social, Culture and Society applies a rigorous and independent double-blind peer-review process to scholarly research manuscripts submitted for publication.

Under this model, reviewers are not informed of the identities of the authors, and authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers during the review process. Editorial staff responsible for administering the submission may have access to author information as required for journal management, conflict checking, and editorial communication.

Peer review is intended to assess the scholarly quality, originality, methodological or theoretical soundness, relevance, clarity, ethical appropriateness, and contribution of a manuscript to the fields covered by Athena.

Core Review Principle: Research manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision; however, responsibility for the final decision remains with the journal's authorized editor.

Step-by-Step Review Workflow

Step 1
Submission and Administrative Screening

After submission, the editorial office checks the manuscript for completeness, required metadata, conformity with the journal's author guidelines, appropriate manuscript structure, required declarations, and essential submission documents.

Step 2
Editorial Desk Evaluation

The Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, or assigned handling editor conducts an initial scholarly evaluation to determine whether the manuscript is relevant to Athena's aims and scope and demonstrates sufficient academic quality, originality, methodological or theoretical adequacy, and potential contribution to warrant external peer review.

Step 3
Similarity and Research Integrity Screening

Manuscripts may be examined using similarity-detection and other research-integrity screening tools. Similarity reports are interpreted by editors and are not treated as an automatic determination of plagiarism solely on the basis of a numerical percentage.

Editorial assessment considers the nature, source, extent, and context of overlapping material. Manuscripts containing plagiarism, substantial unattributed copying, fabricated references, manipulated data, or other serious integrity concerns may be rejected or investigated in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics policy.

Step 4
Reviewer Selection and Conflict-of-Interest Check

Manuscripts that pass the desk evaluation are assigned to reviewers selected on the basis of subject expertise, scholarly qualifications, independence, and suitability for evaluating the manuscript.

Reviewers must disclose potential financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, or personal conflicts of interest. A reviewer whose independence could reasonably be questioned should decline the review or be replaced by the handling editor.

Step 5
Double-Blind External Peer Review

Each research manuscript proceeding to peer review is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers assess the manuscript according to relevant scholarly criteria, including:

  • relevance to the journal's aims and scope;
  • originality and significance of the contribution;
  • quality and adequacy of the literature foundation;
  • appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;
  • validity of analysis and interpretation;
  • clarity and organization of the manuscript;
  • adequacy of evidence supporting the conclusions;
  • ethical and research-integrity considerations; and
  • overall contribution to scholarship.
Step 6
Initial Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers' reports, the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief determines the appropriate editorial outcome. Decisions may include:

  • Accept;
  • Minor Revision;
  • Major Revision;
  • Resubmit for Review; or
  • Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory rather than determinative. The authorized editor is responsible for the final editorial decision and may seek an additional independent review when reports materially conflict or further specialist assessment is required.

Step 7
Author Revision and Response

When revision is requested, authors receive relevant reviewer and editorial comments and are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with a structured point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed or providing a scholarly justification where a recommendation has not been adopted.

Step 8
Re-Review and Final Evaluation

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the handling editor, depending on the extent of revision and the issues identified during the previous review round.

Major revisions will normally require additional evaluation before a final publication decision is made. Acceptance is granted only when the editor determines that the manuscript satisfactorily meets the journal's scholarly and ethical requirements.

Step 9
Acceptance and Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the journal's production workflow, which may include copyediting, reference and metadata verification, layout and typesetting, author proofing, DOI registration, and preparation of the final publication files.

Published research articles should display relevant bibliographic and publication-history information, including publication date and, where available, submission and acceptance dates.

Editorial Decision Categories

Decision Meaning
Accept The manuscript satisfies the journal's scholarly requirements and may proceed to production, subject to final editorial and technical checks.
Minor Revision Limited revisions are required without fundamentally changing the research design, argument, or principal findings.
Major Revision Substantial scholarly revisions are required. The revised manuscript may undergo another round of peer review.
Resubmit for Review Extensive redevelopment is required before the manuscript can be reconsidered through a new or substantially renewed review process.
Reject The manuscript is unsuitable for publication because of scope, scholarly quality, methodological, ethical, originality, or other substantive concerns.

Confidentiality and Use of Artificial Intelligence

Manuscripts under review are confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers must not distribute, reproduce, disclose, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts into external generative artificial intelligence systems for the purpose of generating substantive reviews or editorial assessments. Any journal-approved automated screening tools must operate under appropriate human editorial oversight.

Submissions from Editors and Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by an Editor, Editorial Board member, reviewer, or other person closely associated with Athena are subject to the same scholarly and ethical standards as other submissions. The individual concerned will have no involvement in selecting reviewers, accessing confidential reviewer identities, or making the editorial decision concerning their own manuscript. An independent editor will manage the submission.

Special Issues and Guest-Edited Collections

Articles submitted to special issues or guest-edited collections are subject to the same editorial standards, research-integrity requirements, and independent peer-review procedures as articles published in regular issues.

The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for the scholarly integrity and editorial oversight of all special issues. Guest editors must not make publication decisions on manuscripts where they have a competing interest.

Non-Research Editorial Content

Content that is not presented as peer-reviewed research, such as editorial notices, corrections, retraction notices, or other journal communications, may undergo editorial review rather than external peer review. Such content should be clearly identified by article or document type so that readers are not given the impression that it underwent the journal's standard external peer-review process.

Review Timeline and Editorial Communication

Athena seeks to conduct editorial screening and peer review as efficiently as possible while maintaining appropriate scholarly standards. The duration of peer review may vary according to the subject area, reviewer availability, complexity of the manuscript, number of revision rounds, and responsiveness of authors and reviewers.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance or a fixed review or publication period. When substantial delays occur, authors will be informed through the journal's editorial communication system.

Appeals of Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a substantive scholarly or procedural error affected the evaluation of their manuscript. Appeals must provide a clear justification addressing the relevant editorial or reviewer comments. Appeals are considered independently where possible and do not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

Commitment to Independent Peer Review: Athena is committed to maintaining a fair, confidential, constructive, transparent, and academically independent peer-review process. Neither payment, institutional affiliation, commercial considerations, editorial relationships, nor other inappropriate influences determine acceptance for publication.