Reviewer Guideline

Updated 01.10.2025

REVIEWER GUIDELINES 

1. General Principles

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of European Internal Medicine Professionals (JEIMP) undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process designed in accordance with COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and TR Dizin evaluation standards.
The process aims to ensure fairness, objectivity, confidentiality, and the highest scientific integrity.

2. Editorial Assignment and Initial Screening

  • Upon submission, manuscripts are screened by the Editor-in-Chief or a Section Editor for adherence to journal scope, formatting, and ethical compliance.

  • Submissions lacking essential ethical elements (e.g., Ethics Committee approval, informed consent, conflict of interest disclosure) are returned to authors for correction before review.

  • Eligible manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant academic or clinical expertise.

  • When necessary, additional statistical or language reviewers may be appointed.

3. Double-Blind Review Process

  • JEIMP implements a double-blind review: the identities of both authors and reviewers remain strictly confidential.

  • Authors must remove all identifying information (names, affiliations, acknowledgments) from the main manuscript file before submission.

  • Reviewers are likewise instructed not to attempt to identify the authors.

4. Conflict of Interest and Reviewer Eligibility

  • Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest prior to accepting a review invitation.
    Conflicts may include:

    • recent collaboration with the authors,

    • employment or institutional affiliation overlap,

    • financial or personal relationships that may influence objectivity.

  • If a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the invitation.

  • The editorial office ensures that reviewers assigned to a manuscript are independent of the authors and not from the same institution.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on the following scientific and ethical dimensions:

  1. Relevance and originality – Fit within the scope of JEIMP and contribution to the field.

  2. Scientific rigor and methodology – Validity of study design, statistical analysis, and data interpretation.

  3. Ethical compliance – Ethics approval, informed consent, and conflict of interest statements.

  4. Structure and clarity – Logical organization, clear objectives, and consistency of arguments.

  5. Language and presentation – Grammar, style, clarity, and readability.

  6. Figures, tables, and references – Accuracy, completeness, and relevance.

  7. Title and abstract – Precision, clarity, and accurate reflection of the content.

6. Review Procedure and Timeline

  • Reviewers are contacted via the journal’s online system and must accept or decline the invitation within 3 days.

  • The standard review period is 14 days, extendable upon request.

  • Reminder emails are automatically sent before the deadline.

  • Reviews are submitted using a structured evaluation form, which includes:

    • confidential comments to the editor,

    • constructive comments to the authors,

    • a recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject).

If the reviewers’ recommendations conflict (e.g., one accepts, one rejects), the Section Editor or Editor-in-Chief may assign a third reviewer to reach a balanced decision.

7. Editorial Decision-Making

  • The final decision (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject) is made by the Editorial Board, taking into account reviewer reports, editorial input, and ethical considerations.

  • Decisions are independent of the reviewers’ institutional or professional affiliations.

  • Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments and are expected to address all points during revision.

  • Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the same reviewers when necessary.

8. Confidentiality and Data Protection

  • Reviewers must treat all materials and data as strictly confidential and may not share them with third parties.

  • Review materials must not be used for personal benefit, competitive advantage, or academic gain.

  • All review communications occur exclusively through the journal’s secure system.

9. Quality Assurance and Ethical Oversight

  • All reviews are monitored by the Editorial Office for quality, timeliness, and ethical compliance.

  • JEIMP may provide periodic reviewer training based on COPE guidelines to ensure consistency and quality in evaluations.

  • Reviewers displaying consistent excellence may be invited to join the Editorial Advisory Board.

10. Handling Submissions from Editors and Board Members

If a submission involves an editor or editorial board member:

  • The manuscript is handled by an independent guest editor who has no conflict of interest.

  • The submitting editor is excluded from all editorial decisions and correspondence regarding their manuscript.

  • The double-blind process remains intact, and system access is restricted until a final decision is made.

11. Recognition and Acknowledgment

  • JEIMP publishes an official Reviewer Acknowledgment List every two years, recognizing contributors by name and affiliation.

  • Reviewers may request a Certificate of Appreciation for academic purposes.

  • Reviewers’ identities remain confidential for all individual manuscripts.

12. Appeals and Complaints

  • Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned justification to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days.

  • Appeals are reviewed by an independent editorial member or external expert not involved in the initial decision.

  • Complaints related to editorial or reviewer conduct are handled following COPE’s Complaint and Appeals Guidelines.

13. Ethical References