• Relevant subject knowledge and experience with the manuscript’s methods, materials, or scholarly approach.
• Evidence of suitable scholarly or professional expertise, assessed through publications, institutional information, or other verifiable work.
• Ability to provide a constructive assessment within an agreed period and identify any limits to expertise.

Selection is not determined solely by academic rank, institutional prestige, or citation metrics. The reviewer group should collectively cover the manuscript’s principal assessment needs.

The required external reviewers must be independent of the author group and outside Athena’s editorial team. Editorial Board membership alone does not qualify a person as one of the required external reviewers.

Potential reviewers must disclose relevant relationships, including shared institutional appointments, recent or ongoing collaboration, supervisory relationships, close personal connections, and financial or competitive interests that could compromise assessment.

The editor evaluates disclosures under the Conflicts of Interest policy and replaces reviewers where independence cannot reasonably be maintained. A conflict discovered after acceptance of an invitation must be reported promptly.

The editorial office verifies reviewer identity and contact details using independent sources where available. A non-institutional email address is not automatically disqualifying but may require additional checks.

Authors may suggest reviewers or provide reasoned requests to exclude particular individuals. Suggestions are optional and do not bind the editor. Suggested reviewers undergo the same verification and independence checks as other candidates.

Authors must not contact prospective reviewers about an active assessment or arrange reports themselves. Impersonation and manipulated reviewer suggestions are referred under the journal’s integrity procedures.

Reviewers should accept only when qualified, sufficiently independent, and available. Invitations specify the requested response and reporting dates. Extensions should be agreed with the handling editor.

Additional or replacement reviewers may be invited when expertise is missing, reports are insufficient, conflicts arise, or a reviewer becomes unavailable. Reviewers are not selected merely to obtain a preferred outcome.