Reports are assessed according to their substance and supporting information. The reporter’s seniority, affiliation, professional standing, or relationship with the journal must not determine whether a credible concern is considered.

Journal personnel must not retaliate against someone for raising a concern in good faith. A report that cannot be substantiated is not, for that reason alone, a malicious report.

Knowingly fabricated evidence or threats may be addressed separately. Such conduct does not justify disregarding independently credible evidence. Athena cannot guarantee protection against actions taken by organisations outside its control.

Reporters may request that their identity be restricted to those who need it for assessment. Anonymous reports may also be considered when sufficiently specific evidence permits examination.

The journal does not promise absolute anonymity. Identity may be inferable from the circumstances, and disclosure may be required by a binding obligation or necessary for a fair assessment. Where feasible and lawful, the journal will discuss necessary disclosure with the reporter beforehand.

Evidence may need to be shared with relevant parties in a form that permits a response. Identifying details should be removed where they are unnecessary. Ordinary email is not a dedicated anonymous reporting system.

Reporters may be asked for clarification and may receive updates where contact is possible. Confidentiality obligations may limit access to private responses, institutional findings, or internal deliberations.

Identify any person whose involvement could compromise handling. Reports concerning the editorial office may be submitted through the publisher’s contact for appropriate routing. Independent assessment must still be arranged where the publisher is also implicated.