Standard Resonant Peer Review at Una Mens

​

All submissions to Una Mens are read in full by the editorial team, who assess fit with the journal’s scope and values. When a piece shows strong potential to spark resonance—whether through insight, clarity, creativity, or boldness—it is sent for external peer review. Most submissions are reviewed by two or three readers with relevant expertise, but we may consult additional voices when the content benefits from specific methodological, ethical, or interdisciplinary insight. Editorial decisions are made by weighing the strength of arguments, perspectives from reviewers, and resonance with our core mission—not by majority vote or numerical rank.

 

We invite reviewers not just to judge but to illuminate—offering clarity, questioning assumptions, and helping authors see their work through new lenses. Because scholarly dialogue can involve disagreement, we aim to facilitate thoughtful exchange, not prolonged dispute. Reviewers may be re-consulted during revision, but only when it genuinely serves authors and readers. As editors, we take all critiques seriously, and we strive to balance rigor with care. Our ultimate responsibility is to both the scholarly community and the emerging human-AI collaborative frontier that Una Mens represents.

 

We value transparency. For example, the paragraphs above were drafted by an AI, then edited by a human editor (Mike), who chose to preserve all four em dashes and revise language he felt leaned a bit too casual. At Una Mens, we believe authorship—human or hybrid—deserves to be tracked and shared thoughtfully, especially when it shapes meaning.