Reviewer Guidelines

The European Journal of Innovative Medical Research (EURJIMR) relies on rigorous, fair, and ethical peer review to ensure the scientific quality, integrity, and reliability of the scholarly record. Reviewers play a central role in maintaining these standards and in supporting authors through constructive, objective evaluation.

These guidelines define the responsibilities, expectations, and evaluation framework applied during the peer-review process at EURJIMR.

Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers are expected to provide an independent, unbiased, and evidence-based assessment of submitted manuscripts. Reviews should focus on scientific merit, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and clarity of presentation, rather than perceived prestige, novelty alone, or anticipated citation impact.

Scope, Relevance, and Suitability

Reviewers are asked to assess whether the manuscript falls within the aims and scope of the journal and whether it is appropriate for an international medical readership. Evaluation should consider the clinical, scientific, educational, or public health relevance of the work and its contribution to medical knowledge or practice.

Scientific Quality and Methodological Rigor

Reviewers should evaluate the scientific soundness of the manuscript, including the clarity of research objectives, appropriateness of study design, adequacy of methodology, and transparency of statistical analysis. Methods should be described in sufficient detail to allow reproducibility, and results should be presented clearly and consistently, supported by accurate tables and figures.

Interpretation of findings should be balanced and supported by the presented data. Reviewers are encouraged to comment on whether conclusions are justified, limitations are acknowledged, and implications are appropriately discussed.

Originality and Contribution to the Literature

Reviewers should assess the originality of the work and its contribution to the existing literature. EURJIMR recognizes the value of confirmatory studies, well-documented clinical observations, replication research, and educational case reports, provided they are methodologically sound and ethically conducted.

Clarity, Structure, and Reporting Standards

Reviewers should comment on the clarity, organization, and coherence of the manuscript. Writing quality, logical flow, and adherence to accepted reporting guidelines (such as CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, or CARE, where applicable) should be evaluated. When deficiencies are identified, reviewers are encouraged to provide specific, actionable suggestions for improvement.

Ethical Standards and Research Integrity

EURJIMR follows the ethical principles outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Reviewers are expected to assist the editors in identifying potential ethical concerns, including:

  • Absence or inadequacy of ethics committee approval

  • Missing or insufficient informed consent

  • Ethical concerns in animal research

  • Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or data manipulation

Sensitive ethical concerns may be communicated confidentially to the editor through designated reviewer comment fields.

Professional Conduct and Constructive Feedback

Reviews should be written in a professional, respectful, and constructive tone. Comments should focus on the scientific content and presentation of the manuscript, not on the authors personally. Reviewers should avoid hostile language, personal criticism, or speculative assumptions regarding authorship during double-blind review.

Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use unpublished material for personal or professional advantage. Any real or perceived conflict of interest—financial, professional, or personal—must be disclosed to the editorial office prior to accepting a review invitation. Reviewers with significant conflicts may be asked to decline or withdraw from the review process.

Reviewer Recommendations

At the conclusion of the review, reviewers are asked to provide a recommendation—accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject—supported by their scientific and ethical assessment of the manuscript. Recommendations should be justified with clear reasoning and aligned with the comments provided to authors and editors.

To promote consistency, fairness, and transparency in peer review, EURJIMR employs structured reviewer evaluation forms tailored to different submission types, including original research articles, reviews, and case reports. These forms guide reviewers through standardized assessment domains relevant to the manuscript type, ensuring systematic evaluation of scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and clarity of presentation.

Contribution to Editorial Decision-Making

Reviewer reports form a critical component of the editorial decision process. Editorial decisions are based on reviewer evaluations, scientific merit, ethical considerations, and editorial judgment. While reviewers do not make final decisions, their assessments directly inform the handling editor’s recommendation and the final editorial outcome.

Acknowledgment

EURJIMR recognizes and values the essential contribution of reviewers to the advancement of medical science. The journal is committed to maintaining a respectful, transparent, and efficient review process that supports both reviewers and authors.