Reviewer Guideline

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of European Internal Medicine Professionals (JEIMP) are subject to a rigorous editorial and peer review process. Upon submission, articles are assigned to section editors, who oversee the review process and are responsible for appointing at least two independent peer reviewers with relevant expertise. In some cases, statistical editors and language editors may also be involved in the evaluation process, particularly when specific methodological or linguistic improvements are required.

The section editors, along with other assigned editors if necessary, are also empowered to provide their own critical assessments and suggestions to the authors. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript is made by the editorial board, taking into account both the peer review reports and editorial evaluations. This editorial decision is independent of reviewer recommendations, ensuring a comprehensive and balanced evaluation process.

JEIMP employs a double-blind peer-review system, meaning that the identities of the authors and reviewers are mutually concealed. Authors wishing to maintain anonymity must ensure that all identifying information (e.g., names, affiliations) is removed from the manuscript before submission.

Following peer review, articles may be returned to authors with minor or major revision requests, depending on the quality, scientific soundness, and originality of the manuscript. Manuscripts failing to meet the required academic or ethical standards are declined.

Once a manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to the layout and formatting phase. At this stage, language editors may make revisions to enhance the fluency, clarity, and readability of the manuscript. These linguistic edits are compiled and shared with the authors before final publication, with a notification email requesting their approval. Authors are given 48 to 72 hours to review and approve these changes.

Reviewing for JEIMP

  • JEIMP publishes a list of its reviewers every two years in the final issue, along with a formal acknowledgment of their contributions.

  • Reviewers may request a certificate of appreciation for academic purposes.

  • Submissions authored by reviewers are given priority in the evaluation queue.

JEIMP’s evaluation process is grounded in independent, unbiased, double-blind peer review by two or more experts in the relevant field. The originality, scientific rigor, methodology, relevance, and contribution to the field are critically assessed by both external reviewers and members of the editorial board.

Reviewers are expected to log in using the credentials provided via email and to confirm promptly whether they accept the review assignment. Once accepted, the review should typically be completed within two weeks, unless an extension is requested. Reminder emails are automatically issued if deadlines are not met.

Reviewers are required to complete a structured evaluation form in the online system, including optional confidential comments to the editors and public comments to the authors. If one reviewer recommends acceptance and the other rejection, the section editor or editor-in-chief may assign a third reviewer to resolve the discrepancy.

Before finalizing their reviews, reviewers should carefully consider the following criteria:

  • Relevance of the manuscript to JEIMP’s scope

  • Contribution to scientific knowledge and potential for future research

  • Scientific structure, clarity of objectives, and validity of methodology

  • Language quality, terminology, and logical coherence

  • Originality, ethical compliance, and citation adequacy

  • Quality of tables, figures, and supplementary materials

  • Suitability of the title and abstract

All reviewers must upload the "Evaluation Form For The Reviewers" to complete the evaluation process.

NOTE: If a member of the journal's editorial board submits an article, their editorial responsibilities are adjusted to prevent their involvement in the peer review and editorial processes of their own submission. To maintain a double-blind review process, the editor's access to their own article's workflow is restricted until a final decision—acceptance or rejection—is made.