Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Erothanatos follows a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer-review system to ensure the publication of original, high-quality scholarly research. The journal is committed to maintaining academic integrity, fairness, and confidentiality throughout the review process. 

The reviewing process is done through the following stages:

​1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes a preliminary assessment by the Editorial Team (generally by the Abstract Editor or the Editor-in-Chief) to determine:

  • Relevance to the journal's scope and aims;
  • Originality and scholarly significance;
  • Compliance with submission guidelines and formatting requirements;
  • Adherence to ethical standards, including plagiarism screening.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or declined without external review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Erothanatos follows a double-blind peer-review model. In this process:

  • The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers.
  • The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.
  • Authors are required to remove all identifying information from the manuscript before submission.

This system ensures impartiality and minimises potential biases during evaluation.

3. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic qualifications, research experience, and publication record in the relevant field.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and contribution to knowledge;
  • Theoretical and methodological rigor;
  • Critical engagement with existing scholarship;
  • Clarity, coherence, and organization of argument;
  • Quality of analysis and interpretation;
  • Appropriateness of references and citations;
  • Language, style, and overall presentation.

5. Review Recommendations

Based on the reviewers' reports, the assigned Editor or the Editor-in-Chief takes the decision to accept, reject, or send for resubmit. However, if reviewers' recommendations differ significantly, the manuscript may be sent to a member of the Editorial Board. 

6. Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests are expected to:

  • Address all reviewer comments carefully;
  • Submit a revised manuscript within the stipulated timeframe;
  • Provide a detailed response document explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original/different reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

7. Final Decision

The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewer reports, editorial assessment, and the journal's publication standards. The Editor's decision is final.

8. Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. 

9. Complaints

Authors who believe that a manuscript has been unfairly evaluated may send an email to the Editor-in-Chief expressing the reason for grievance or complaint. Appeals will be reviewed independently, and the journal reserves the right to seek additional expert opinions before reaching a final decision.

Erothanatos expects the originality of the content, analysis, and ideas. So, articles may be rejected at any stage (even it is published) if

·         the submission is plagiarised.

·         the submission contains a nearly similar idea in another submission, which was earlier published.

·         the submission contains citation manipulation and falsification or distortion of data.

·         the submission contains any racial, linguistic, gender, political, or regional bias.