Peer Review Procedure
Peer Review Policy and Procedure
EJMN operates a double-blind peer-review procedure: the identities of authors and reviewers are kept from each other throughout the evaluation. The journal follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
1. Workflow
Step 1 – Submission and technical desk evaluation
- After online submission the Journal Editor makes an initial check.
- Similarity screening: manuscripts are screened with similarity-detection software to verify originality and citation integrity.
- Scope and technical assessment: the editor checks that the manuscript is within EJMN's aims and scope, has the required structure and is formatted according to the Instructions for Authors.
- Manuscripts with a high similarity index, serious structural deficiencies or an out-of-scope topic are desk-rejected.
Step 2 – Assignment to reviewers
- Manuscripts that pass the desk evaluation are sent to at least two independent external reviewers.
- Author names, affiliations and contact details are removed from the files sent to reviewers.
Step 3 – Independent evaluation
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript against the criteria below and may add comments or tracked changes in the file.
Step 4 – Recommendation and decision
Reviewers recommend one of: Accept as is; Minor revisions (small structural, language or technical changes); Major revisions (substantial theoretical, methodological or experimental revision); Reject (critical scientific or structural flaws). The editors take the decision.
Step 5 – Revision and re-evaluation
- Reviewer and editor comments are sent to the author with reviewer anonymity preserved.
- The author revises the manuscript and submits it with a point-by-point response. After major revisions the revised manuscript is returned to the original reviewers.
Step 6 – Final decision and production
- Accepted manuscripts go to production (typesetting, metadata, publication).
- Published articles state their Submitted, Accepted and Published dates.
2. Reviewer selection and registration
- Registration: prospective reviewers register on the journal platform with their CV and research profile.
- Assessment: the editor checks research competence, degree and publication record in the relevant field.
- Matching: assignments are based on topic, methodological relevance and the absence of competing interests.
3. Review criteria
| Dimension | What reviewers assess |
|---|---|
| Originality and significance | Novelty of the work and its contribution to medicine, health care or the natural sciences. |
| Structure and completeness | Title, abstract, keywords, introduction, methods or model, results, discussion, conclusions and references are present and proportionate. |
| Methodology and scientific soundness | Validity of the study design, sample, materials and methods; statistical or analytical treatment; ethics approval and consent where applicable; validation and reproducibility; sufficiency of data. |
| Literature and citations | Adequate and accurate citation of related work; no citation manipulation or unreferenced claims. |
| Results and discussion | Interpretation of results, limitations, and the theoretical or practical implications drawn. |
| Language and presentation | Clarity, succinctness, figures and tables, and English language quality; proofreading advised where needed. |
4. Generative AI in peer review
Reviewers
- Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts, figures, data or author information into generative AI tools or other third-party AI software.
- AI tools must not be used to carry out the evaluation or write the review report.
- Reviewers may use AI-assisted tools only to improve the language of their own comments, and must tell the Handling Editor if they did.
Editors
Editors remain fully responsible for decisions. Automated tools may assist screening (similarity checks, reference validation), but acceptance and rejection are decided by human editors.
5. Reviewer obligations
- Confidentiality: manuscripts are confidential and must not be shared or used for personal or research gain.
- Objectivity: reports are constructive and free of personal bias.
- Conflicts of interest: reviewers decline assignments where a financial, institutional, professional or personal conflict exists.
- Timeliness: reviews are completed in the agreed time, or the editor is told promptly.
6. Governance
The editors have sole authority over acceptance, guided by peer-review outcomes and scientific merit. The Journal Manager oversees the execution of this policy.
Journal Management
European Journal of Medicine and Natural Sciences (EJMN)
ISSN 2601-6397 (Print) | ISSN 2601-6400 (Online) | Journal e-mail: [email protected]
Publisher: Mentisia Research and Publishing (UK Company No.: 13067873)
Address: Office 1, Forest House Business Centre, 8 Gainsborough Road, London, E11 1HT, UK
Publisher e-mail: [email protected] | Phone: +44 330 027 1458
