Reviewer Guideline

The article submitted to JEIMP for publication is evaluated by field-specific reviewers and the final decision is at acceptance or rejection taken by the editorial board, not only on the reviewers' decision. The editorial board can change reviewers and the number of referees required to evaluate an article depends on the article's specificity and originality. Names of reviewers evaluating the articles are not informed to the authors (Double-Blind peer-review). The names of the authors not to be seen by the reviewers (double-blind peer review) are left to the preference of the authors. The authors using this preference should delete the lines of name and address in the article. Depending on the reviewer's reports, the decision of major revision or minor revision can be given to the articles that aren’t seen enough. The articles which aren’t reached the intended level or don’t seem enough in terms of scientific perspective are declined.

• JEIMP publishes the reviewer list every 2 years in the last issue along with its special thanks to the reviewers.

• The reviewers can ask for a "thanks certificate" to use in their academic process.

• The articles from the reviewers are evaluated first.

 

Journal of European Internal Medicine (JEIMP) is based on independent, unbiased, double-blinded peer-review reports in the evaluation of the articles. The articles, their originality, methodologies, and the importance of the topic discussed are evaluated by members of the Editorial Board. This is followed by an unbiased double-blind peer review by two or more independent experts in the field. For all submissions, the Editorial Board is the final authority in the decision-making process. Reviewers should evaluate all articles in terms of their authenticity, validity, importance, and ethics. The reviewer can enter the system by entering the user name and password through the link address sent to the e-mail address.

 

When the reviewers receive an invitation through our article evaluation system, it is expected that they will decide quickly and decide whether to accept the evaluation or not. Reviewers accepting the evaluation must submit the evaluation result within the specified time (usually 2 weeks). In case of delay, reminders are made with warning e-mails. Reviewers must fill in the evaluation form in the system after evaluating the article in accordance with the criteria stated above. They can also convey their views on the article to authors and editors separately. Reviewers are informed about the process of the article through the system.

In the case of one acceptance and one decline, the section editors/editors-in-chief can assign another reviewer to make an appropriate decision.

Before completing the evaluation of the reviewers; it is expected to make final checks on conflicts of interest, publication misconduct, suitability to the journal's standards, title and abstract quality, scientific structure, novelty and significance of information, suitability of terminology, adequacy of the references, the sufficiency of the figures, tables, and also abstract suitability and priority of publication.