All original research articles, short communications and mini or in-depth review articles received by European Journal of Medicine and Dentistry (EJMD) ® are peer-reviewed. We value peer reviewer’s contribution and the time that reviewers devote in assessing the manuscripts. We consider peer-review as an essential part of the publication process and immensely appreciate the tremendous collective contribution that reviewers make to European Journal of Medicine and Dentistry (EJMD)®. We ensure that the peer review process is fair and we aim to minimise bias. Ideally, we aim to complete the peer review process in eight weeks. However, practically this may take up to nine to twelve months or even longer in rare circumstances depending upon satisfactory completion of peer review and editorial process.
The manuscript is first evaluated by an editor and is checked for scope, framework and technical aspects. If approved, it is then checked for plagiarism by the editor before being sent for peer review. If not approved at this stage, manuscript is ‘rejected’ and author(s) are informed about the decision.
All manuscripts received by European Journal of Medicine and Dentistry (EJMD) ® are checked for plagiarism at every stage of the peer-review and editorial process. Please see Section 4 for our Plagiarism Policy
Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process. Reviewers are matched to the manuscript according to their area of expertise and experience. All manuscripts are sent to at least two or sometime more independent reviewers selected by the journal editors. In case a peer reviewer is not immediately available, we ask authors to suggest reviewers but the editor’s decision is final on the choice of referees.
2.4.1 Papers submitted to European Journal of Medicine and Dentistry (EJMD) ® are peer reviewed in a double-blind fashion (both author and referee names are concealed). Editors, authors and reviewers are required to keep all details of the editorial and peer review process on a manuscript as confidential. The entire peer review process is confidential and conducted anonymously and identities of authors or reviewers are not released. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality of manuscripts. All correspondence with between editors and referees and editors and authors is confidential. If any confidential discussions have taken place between an author, editor and referee, they will remain in confidence unless explicit consent has been given by all concerned parties or if there are exceptional circumstances.
2.4.2 European Journal of Medicine and Dentistry (EJMD) ® is committed to rapid editorial process. Reviewers should provide speedy, accurate, courteous and unbiased reports. Reviewers are sent invite email through our web-based Journal Management system epress of University of Surrey (www.epress.ac.uk). Reviewers are asked to respond within 15 days after they receive first invite to review a manuscript. Reviewers should be aware that such messages contain confidential information and should be treated as such. If the reviewers are unable to review due to time constraints or if a reviewer feels they are not qualified to evaluate a particular manuscript, they may decline the invite request and may suggest alternative reviewers. Reviewers must inform the journal promptly if their circumstances change after they have accepted to review a manuscript. A first reminder for submitting report is sent after lapse of 15 days. If selected reviewers do not return the report in the stipulated time, editor will match and select a third reviewer and so on. Editor may ask the authors to suggest reviewers, however, editor will take the final decision on choice the reviewers. Reviewers must do the review themselves without involving another person.
2.4.3 Reviewers are provided with access to Crossref Similarity Check Services (iThenticate) to assist them in conducting plagiarism checks on the manuscripts.
2.2.4 Reviewers are asked to submit their reports via our secure and user-friendly web-based journal management system epress (www.epress.ac.uk) by following the link provided in the editor's invite email.
2.2.5 Reviewers evaluate a manuscript and then submit their report online on an epress link provided to them in the invite email. Their recommendations are one of the following:
• Accept (manuscript can be accepted without any changes)
• Minor Revisions (manuscript can be accepted after the author makes some minor revisions)
• Revise and Resubmit (manuscript needs to be revised and resubmitted making major revisions)
• Reject (manuscripts is rejected and reasons are provided to author for any likely resubmission)
2.4.6 Reviews should do objective evaluations of the research. The main purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision but the review should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. Reviewers must be constructive and courteous. A negative review should explain to the authors the major weaknesses of their manuscript so that the authors can improve their manuscripts and decide to resubmit later. Reviewers are thus welcome to give a recommendation but their comments which include the information on which the decision should be based are most useful for editors to evaluate and take a final decision on the manuscript. Providing arguments for and against publication for a manuscript is more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation.
In their online report in epress reviewers are asked to submit
(i) comments for author(s)
(ii) comments for editor(s)
Reviewers are encouraged to have same tone for both sets of comments.
The sections of the report include the following:
(i) Please provide information on plagiarism
(ii) Please provide some constructively expressed feedback for the author,
designed to help them revise or rewrite the article for this journal or another.
(iii) Has the author sufficiently taken advantage of the opportunities available through electronic
publication (e.g. access to program code or data; colour illustrations; animations)?
If not, have you any suggestions that could be forwarded to the author
Reviewer’s recommendation should be congruent with the comments provided in the review report. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate and no defamatory or derogatory language should be used in the comments.
To be published in European Journal of Medicine and Dentistry (EJMD)®, we encourage reviewers to evaluate a paper such that it meets the following general criteria:
a. The work described is novel
b. Authors have provided strong evidence for its conclusions.
c. The work is of significant important for the relevant field and also interesting for other related fields.
Referees are expected to identify flaws and also suggest improvements.
Editors mediate all communication exchanges between authors and referees during the entire peer review process (i.e. prior to publication of the manuscript). If at any stage agreement cannot be reached then the editors may consider inviting comments from additional reviewer(s) if needed.
2.6.1 European Journal of Medicine and Dentistry (EJMD) ® editors generally take a decision by following a majority recommendation by reviewers. They also evaluate the arguments raised by reviewers and authors to arrive to a decision. Sometimes additional reviewers are contacted to resolve any disparity. At many occasions revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief’s decision is final.
2.6.2 A final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is sent to the author along with recommendations made by the reviewers, and may include verbatim comments by the reviewers. A copy of this final decision is generally sent to all peer reviewers of the article. We do not edit the report when sending to author and we generally send all referee comments intended to the author. However, we reserve the right to edit the report if deemed necessary because of language concerns. We do not publish peer review reports for articles published in European Journal of Medicine and Dentistry (EJMD)®. After a manuscript is revised and resubmitted to the journal, editors may send the revised submission for review again to same reviewers to maintain consistency of the review process. The decision on a manuscript is one of the following:
a. If both reviewers recommend ‘Accept’, the manuscript is accepted by the editors. Following this case, the manuscript moves to Section 2.7
b. If both reviewers recommend ‘Minor Revisions’, manuscript is returned to authors and they are given a conditional acceptance subject to these revisions. Following this case, the manuscript moves to Section 2.7.1
c. If both reviewers recommend ‘Revise and Resubmit’, manuscript is returned to authors asking them to make revisions and resubmit the manuscript. Following this case, the manuscript moves to Section 2.7.1
d. If one reviewer recommends ‘Accept’ and second reviewer recommends ‘Minor Revisions’, manuscript is returned to authors and they are given a conditional acceptance subject to these revisions. Following this case, the manuscript moves to Section 2.7.1
e. If one reviewer recommends ‘Accept’ or ‘Minor Revisions’ and second reviewer recommends ‘Revise and Resubmit’, manuscript is returned to authors asking them to make revisions and resubmit the manuscript. Following this case, the manuscript moves to Section 2.7.1
f. If either or both of the reviewers recommend ‘Reject’, editor will evaluate comments of the reviewer and take a decision of either a) return the manuscript to authors asking them to make revisions suggested by the reviewers and resubmit a fresh manuscript or b) send the manuscript to one or two new reviewer(s) for evaluation or (c) reject the manuscript. The editor may consult editorial board members in arriving at this decision. Editor-in-Chief’s decision is final.
In particular situations, example if reviewer has suggested an experiment which authors are unable to perform because of practical/logistical reasons and authors are able to justify it, then suitable decision on the manuscript will be taken by the editor in consultation with editorial board members. Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication is based only on the paper’s importance, novelty, and clarity and the relevance of the study. Editor-in-Chief’s decision is final.
The final decision regarding a manuscript is sent to the author along with recommendations made by the reviewers along with verbatim comments by the reviewers. A copy of this final decision is generally sent to all peer reviewers of the manuscript. We do not edit the review report when sending to the author and we generally send all reviewer comments intended to the author. However, we reserve the right to edit the report if deemed necessary because of language concerns. We do not publish peer review reports for articles published in European Journal of Medicine and Dentistry (EJMD)®.
2.7.1 Revision and Resubmission of manuscripts
Authors will resubmit the revised manuscript along with point by point response to the issues raised by the reviewers. Editor will normally send the revised submission and the author responses for review again to same two reviewers for their further recommendation and to maintain consistency of the review process.
a) If recommendation is ‘Accept’ the manuscript will be accepted
b) If recommendation is ‘Minor Revision’ the manuscript will go back to Section 2.6.2 d
c) If recommendation is ‘Revise and Resubmit’ the manuscript will go back to Section 2.6.2 e
d) If recommendation is ‘Reject’ the manuscript will go back to Section 2.6.2 e and editor will take a decision in consultation with editorial board members. Editor-in-Chief’s decision is final.
Once authors return the second revised (if any) of manuscript, editor will take a final editorial decision on the manuscript in consultation with Editor-in-chief. Authors will be informed of the decision.
Authors have a right to appeal editorial decisions taken by European Journal of Medicine and Dentistry (EJMD)®. The author should submit the grounds for their appeal to the editorial office through email. Authors are discouraged from directly contacting any editorial board members or editors with their appeals. Following an appeal, all editorial decisions are conclusive and final decision rests with the Editor-in-chief.
2.7.3 Proofing and Acceptance
After peer review is complete and authors have been informed, the manuscript is formally accepted. This date is the original ‘Data of Acceptance’. The final proofs are now sent to authors for correction of minor errors and grammar only. No other change is allowed at the proofing stage. We reserve the right to set the size of images and tables etc in the manuscript in its published form. The final accepted manuscript is assigned a DOI.
See Section 5 for our Retraction policy
The Editorial Advisory Board of European Journal of Medicine and Dentistry (EJMD) ® is suitable for well networked academics of standing in their fields whose judgements are highly regarded within their discipline, have good track record of publication and have sound academic aptitude. The members of Editorial Advisory Board of have the following responsibilities:
• To support editors in the review process by providing suggestions and/or opinions on submitted papers.
• To provide guidance and advise to editors from time to time on journal policy, scope and content.
• To contribute in promotion and development of the journal inter alia, by endorsing it to academics and institutions
• To participate in the meetings of the board
• To recommend suitable measures for improvement of the journal
This membership is a voluntary position with no remuneration attached to the role.
Page last updated Nov 21, 2018