Reviewer Guideline

Journal of European Internal Medicine Professionals (JEIMP)
Last updated: 01 October 2025

1. General Principles

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of European Internal Medicine Professionals (JEIMP) undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process conducted in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and internationally recognized standards of scholarly publishing.

The peer review process is designed to ensure fairness, objectivity, confidentiality, transparency, and scientific integrity.

2. Editorial Assignment and Initial Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts are initially screened by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriate Section Editor to assess:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope,

  • Compliance with formatting and submission requirements,

  • Adherence to ethical policies.

Submissions lacking essential ethical documentation (e.g., ethics committee approval, informed consent statements, conflict of interest disclosures) may be returned to the authors for correction prior to peer review.

Manuscripts deemed suitable are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant academic or clinical expertise. Where appropriate, additional statistical or language reviewers may be consulted.

3. Double-Blind Review Process

JEIMP employs a double-blind peer review model in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept strictly confidential.

Authors are required to remove all identifying information (including names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and self-identifying references) from the main manuscript file prior to submission. Reviewers are instructed not to attempt to identify the authors.

4. Conflict of Interest and Reviewer Eligibility

Reviewers must declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation. Conflicts may include, but are not limited to:

  • Recent collaboration with the authors,

  • Employment at the same institution,

  • Financial, personal, or professional relationships that could compromise objectivity.

If a conflict of interest exists, reviewers are expected to decline the invitation. The editorial office ensures that assigned reviewers are independent of the authors and their institutions.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Relevance and originality: Contribution to the field and alignment with JEIMP’s scope.

  • Scientific rigor and methodology: Study design, statistical analysis, and validity of conclusions.

  • Ethical compliance: Ethics approval, informed consent, and conflict of interest disclosures.

  • Structure and clarity: Logical organization and coherence of arguments.

  • Language and presentation: Clarity, readability, and academic tone.

  • Figures, tables, and references: Accuracy, completeness, and appropriateness.

  • Title and abstract: Precision and accurate representation of the manuscript content.

6. Review Procedure and Timeline

Review invitations are sent through the journal’s online submission system. Reviewers are asked to accept or decline invitations within a reasonable timeframe.

The standard review period is approximately two weeks, with extensions granted upon request. Automated reminders may be issued to support timely completion.

Reviews are submitted via a structured evaluation form, including:

  • Confidential comments to the editor,

  • Constructive comments to the authors,

  • A recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject).

In cases of substantially divergent reviewer recommendations, the Section Editor or Editor-in-Chief may invite an additional reviewer to support a balanced editorial decision.

7. Editorial Decision-Making

Final editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board, taking into account reviewer reports, editorial assessment, and ethical considerations.

Decisions are independent of reviewers’ institutional affiliations or professional status. Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments and are expected to address all points raised during revision. Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers when appropriate.

8. Confidentiality and Data Protection

All manuscript materials and reviewer communications are treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or use any submitted materials for personal, academic, or commercial purposes.

All peer review activities are conducted exclusively through the journal’s secure editorial management system.

9. Quality Assurance and Ethical Oversight

The Editorial Office monitors reviewer performance for quality, timeliness, and adherence to ethical standards. JEIMP may offer periodic guidance or training aligned with COPE recommendations to ensure consistency and high-quality peer review.

Reviewers demonstrating sustained excellence may be invited to participate in the journal’s Editorial Advisory activities.

10. Handling Submissions from Editors and Editorial Board Members

When a manuscript is submitted by an editor or a member of the Editorial Board:

  • The submission is handled by an independent editor with no conflict of interest.

  • The author-editor is fully excluded from all editorial decisions and communications related to the manuscript.

  • The double-blind peer review process remains intact, and editorial system access is restricted until a final decision is reached.

11. Recognition and Acknowledgment of Reviewers

JEIMP periodically publishes a Reviewer Acknowledgment List recognizing the contributions of reviewers. Reviewers may request a Certificate of Appreciation for academic and professional purposes.

Reviewer identities remain confidential with respect to individual manuscripts.

12. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal of an editorial decision to the Editor-in-Chief within a defined timeframe. Appeals are reviewed by an independent editorial member or external expert not involved in the original decision.

Complaints regarding editorial or peer review conduct are handled in accordance with COPE Complaints and Appeals Guidelines.

13. Ethical References

 

Reviewer Diversity Statement

The Journal of European Internal Medicine Professionals (JEIMP) is committed to maintaining a diverse, inclusive, and international peer review process.

JEIMP seeks to engage reviewers from different countries, institutions, clinical subspecialties, career stages, and academic backgrounds to ensure balanced, fair, and high-quality manuscript evaluation.

Reviewer selection is based on subject-matter expertise, research experience, and ethical standards, without discrimination based on gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, or professional background.

By promoting reviewer diversity, JEIMP aims to enhance the quality, objectivity, and global relevance of its peer review process.