Peer Review Policies

The European Journal of Innovative Medical Research (EURJIMR) employs a rigorous, transparent, and ethically grounded peer-review system to ensure the integrity, quality, and scientific value of all published work. The journal’s process is fully aligned with COPE, DOAJ, TR Dizin, and Web of Science editorial standards.

Type of Peer Review

EURJIMR uses a double-blind peer review process.

  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.
    This system ensures objectivity, minimizes bias, and upholds fair evaluation regardless of authors' institution, nationality, or career stage.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are chosen based on the following criteria:

  • Demonstrated expertise in the manuscript’s subject area

  • Active publication record in relevant fields

  • Absence of conflicts of interest

  • Prior performance in reviewing (timeliness, constructive feedback, professionalism)

Editors may use the journal’s reviewer database, external experts, or verified profiles (e.g., ORCID-linked scholars) to identify suitable reviewers.

Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript is evaluated by a minimum of two independent reviewers.
In cases requiring specialized expertise or when reviews conflict, additional reviewers may be invited.

Peer Review Timeline

EURJIMR aims to maintain an efficient, respectful, and predictable review schedule:

  • Initial reviewer invitation: within 5 days of editor assignment

  • Review period: 14–21 days

  • Revision assessment: 7–14 days

Timeline variations may occur depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, or the need for multiple revision rounds.

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

EURJIMR welcomes a broad spectrum of scientific contributions. While originality is valued, the journal does not restrict acceptance to only highly novel, high-impact, or citation-oriented research. Well-designed studies, careful observations, confirmatory analyses, and clearly presented educational case reports all hold meaningful value in advancing medical knowledge. Our philosophy is that all scientifically sound and ethically conducted research deserves a place in the scholarly record.

Reviewers are therefore asked to evaluate manuscripts based on objective scientific and ethical criteria rather than perceived “publishability” or expected citation potential. Key assessment areas include:

  • Scientific soundness and methodological rigor

  • Clarity, coherence, and educational value of the presentation

  • Relevance and usefulness to clinicians, researchers, or educators

  • Appropriateness and transparency of statistical analysis

  • Accuracy and validity of data and interpretations

  • Ethical compliance (human/animal research approval, informed consent, trial registration when applicable)

  • Contribution to the literature, whether through new findings, replication, practical insights, or clinically instructive observations

Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations—accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject—along with constructive, detailed comments intended to help authors improve their work regardless of the editorial outcome.

Handling of Conflicting Reviews

If reviewers deliver significantly contradictory evaluations, the handling editor may:

  • Request an additional independent review, or

  • Consult a senior editor for an expert assessment.

All decisions are made by integrating reviewer feedback, scientific merit, and editorial judgment. Conflicts are resolved transparently and always documented in the editorial record.

Editorial Overrides

Editorial decisions must reflect reviewer input and scientific evidence.

  • Editors may not override clear reviewer consensus without documented justification.

  • Any override must be based on demonstrable scholarly merit, ethical considerations, or methodological clarification.

  • All overrides are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief to ensure transparency and compliance with TR Dizin and COPE standards.

Author Appeal Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal written request that provides:

  • A clear rationale for disagreement

  • Evidence addressing reviewer comments

  • Additional data or clarification where appropriate

Appeals are evaluated by an independent senior editor or a member of the editorial board not previously involved in handling the manuscript.
Appeals do not guarantee reversal of the decision.

Reviewer Anonymity and Confidentiality

Reviewer identities are strictly protected.

  • Reviewer names are never disclosed to authors.

  • Manuscripts and review reports must be treated as confidential documents.

  • Reviewers may not use, share, or cite any information obtained through the review process.

EURJIMR follows COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers to ensure confidentiality, professionalism, and the responsible use of unpublished material.