The Peer Review Process

 

Peer Review Process at EMID Journals

EMID Journals employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to uphold the highest ethical standards, scientific integrity, and scholarly reputation. This process ensures that all submitted manuscripts are evaluated fairly and objectively, without any bias related to the authors’ identity.

Key Responsibilities and Workflow

Initial Screening:
The Chief Co-Editor(s)-in-Chief are solely responsible for the initial assessment of each submission. They verify that the manuscript aligns with the journal’s aims, scope, and quality benchmarks. Before sending manuscripts for review, the Chief Co-Editor(s) ensure that all author names and affiliations are fully anonymized to maintain the double-blind standard.

Editorial and Review Board Selection:
Individuals invited to join the editorial advisory or review boards must submit their Curriculum Vitae (CV) or resume for evaluation. Upon selection, each member must provide written consent—via email or letter—confirming their acceptance of the nomination and appointment.

Reviewer Assignment and Management:
The Chief Co-Editor(s)-in-Chief oversee the assignment of peer reviewers using a transparent and objective process. While EMID Journals utilize an online submission and management system to facilitate tracking, due to the absence of a fully automated platform, communications and review submissions are primarily conducted via email. Reviewers may submit their evaluations either through the online system or by email, ensuring flexibility while maintaining a clear record of the review process.

Review Completion and Decision:
Upon receiving completed reviews, the Chief Co-Editor(s) carefully evaluate the reviewer comments and recommendation forms. These inputs inform the editorial decision, which may include acceptance, requests for revision, or rejection. The combined use of email and the online system ensures transparency and accountability, providing a documented trail should any questions arise regarding the review process.

This approach reflects EMID Journals’ commitment to quality, fairness, and scientific excellence, even within the constraints of current technological resources.

 

Double Blind Review process

 

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

IJEMID follows a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process to maintain the highest standards of impartiality, confidentiality, and academic integrity. In this process, both the authors and reviewers remain completely anonymous to each other to eliminate bias and ensure a fair evaluation of each manuscript.

Key Norms and Process Overview:

  1. Confidentiality:
    The entire review process is strictly confidential. Communication between authors and reviewers is indirect, ensuring that neither party has access to the other’s identity or personal information.

  2. Anonymity:
    The identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the process. Manuscripts are carefully anonymized by removing all author-identifying details before review.

  3. Independent Evaluation:
    Each manuscript is evaluated independently by at least two expert reviewers. This ensures diverse, unbiased perspectives and enhances the quality and reliability of the review.

  4. Timely Review:
    The review process is managed within a clearly defined timeframe to provide timely feedback to authors while maintaining thorough scrutiny.

  5. Author Declarations:
    Authors must submit a declaration confirming the originality, authenticity, and non-plagiarism of their work, reinforcing the ethical standards upheld by the journal.

  6. Reviewer Responsibilities:
    Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and confidential evaluations. A sample letter outlining reviewer responsibilities and expectations is provided to all reviewers to ensure clarity and consistency.

  7. Submission and Communication:
    Manuscripts and reviewer reports are managed either through an online submission system or via email communications. While we utilize digital tools to streamline the process, some communications are handled by email to accommodate our current system limitations.

  8. Editorial Oversight:
    The Editor-in-Chief oversees the initial screening and final decision-making. They ensure that all submissions meet the journal’s scope and standards before peer review and that reviewer comments are complete and fair.

  9. Revision and Final Decision:
    Authors receive anonymized reviewer feedback and may be invited to revise their manuscripts accordingly. Revised submissions may be re-evaluated before final acceptance.

This double-blind peer review process safeguards the integrity and quality of published research by fostering an unbiased, transparent, and ethical evaluation environment.

 

Co-Editor(s)-in-Chief Responsibilities:

  • Inviting Editorial board members and Reviewers board members for joining EMID Journals following a due process selection of the board members.
  • Organising and maintaining an Editorial Board (minimum of 8+ Associate Editors and 20+ Editorial Review Board Members representing researchers from academic and professional institutions).
  • Giving call for research journal manuscripts and soliciting good quality research manuscript submissions for the journal.
  • Using a minimum of two Editorial Review Board Members for successful completion of a double-blind peer review of each manuscript via submission system.
  • Collecting and organising final materials for each issue, ensuring that every manuscript submission adheres to EMID Journals’ formatting and submission guidelines.
  • Publishing the completed issues on a semi-annual basis.

Reviewer Responsibilities and Expectations:

 

Reviewer Responsibilities and Expectations

Thank you for contributing your expertise as a reviewer for EMID Journals. Reviewers play a critical and highly valued role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and scientific rigor of the research we publish. This document outlines your responsibilities and expectations as part of our double-blind peer review process.

Key Responsibilities

  • Double-Blind Review Process:
    All reviews must be conducted anonymously, with both authors’ and reviewers’ identities kept confidential. Manuscripts are anonymized before review and assigned to at least two independent reviewers based on expertise and workload. Reviews are submitted through our editorial management system or via email if the system is not fully automated.

  • Timely Submission of Reviews:
    Reviews must be completed and submitted by the assigned due date to ensure a smooth publication timeline. Typically, the entire double-blind review process lasts 4 to 8 weeks. If there are delays or conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be consulted.

  • Conflict of Interest Disclosure:
    If you recognize the identity of the author or have any conflict of interest with the manuscript, please notify the Co-Editor(s)-in-Chief immediately to avoid bias.

  • Confidentiality:
    Treat all manuscript materials and correspondence confidentially. Do not share, discuss, or use any information from the manuscript for personal gain.

  • Constructive, Evidence-Based Feedback:
    Provide thorough, honest, and constructive feedback to help authors improve their research. Your comments should be supported by specific references to the manuscript, including page numbers, paragraphs, sections, and relevant citations where applicable.

  • Focus on Content and Quality:
    Assess the manuscript’s originality, relevance, methodology, data analysis, clarity, coherence, and alignment with the journal’s aims and scope. Evaluate the adequacy of tables, figures, and diagrams. Review should go beyond minor typographical or language errors, as authors are responsible for proofreading.

  • Objective and Respectful Tone:
    Provide professional and respectful comments. Avoid any derogatory, unethical, or disrespectful language. If you recommend rejection, clearly explain your reasons and provide constructive suggestions for improvement.

  • Evaluation Criteria:
    While reviewing, consider the following:

    • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope

    • Originality and significance of contribution

    • International relevance and timeliness

    • Background, research problem, and objectives clarity

    • Depth and criticality of literature review

    • Appropriateness and justification of research methodology

    • Robustness of data analysis and discussion

    • Quality of writing, organization, and logical flow

    • Overall fit for purpose and scientific rigor

    • Recommendation for acceptance, revision, or rejection

  • Reviewer Accountability and Quality Control:
    Reviewer performance is monitored annually based on quality, completeness, timeliness, and rigor of reviews. Consistently poor performance may result in removal from the reviewer board.

  • Professional Development:
    Serving as a reviewer enhances your academic profile and contributes to the scholarly community. You help advance research quality and integrity while expanding your own knowledge and professional network.

Additional Notes

  • Submission and Communication:
    Due to the partial automation of our systems, communications and submission of reviews may occur via email or the online editorial management system. Please check your email regularly for updates.

  • Review Feedback Style:
    Aim to provide SMART feedback — Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound — with clear actionable suggestions.

  • Reviewer Invitation and Appointment:
    New reviewers are selected based on their expertise, and must provide a CV/resume and written consent before joining the review board.

If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact the editorial office. Thank you for your invaluable contribution to EMID Journals.

 

EMID Journals: Step-by-Step Peer Review Workflow

 

EMID Journals: Step-by-Step Peer Review Workflow

Stage 1: Call for Manuscript Submission

  • The Co-Editor(s)-in-Chief invite submissions aligned with the journal’s aims and scope, or authors submit their manuscripts directly.

Stage 2: Author Submission

  • Authors submit complete manuscripts using the prescribed template and formatting guidelines via the online submission system or by email if necessary.

Stage 3: Initial Editorial Assessment

  • The Co-Editor(s)-in-Chief conduct an initial review to ensure the manuscript fits the journal’s scope and quality standards.

  • Manuscripts not meeting criteria are rejected promptly, with authors notified.

Stage 4: Manuscript Anonymization and Assignment

  • Suitable manuscripts are anonymized by removing author names and affiliations.

  • Each manuscript is assigned to at least two independent reviewers based on expertise and workload.

Stage 5: Double-Blind Peer Review

  • Reviewers receive the anonymized manuscript and instructions, then conduct a thorough evaluation based on established criteria (originality, methodology, clarity, relevance, etc.).

  • Reviewers submit their feedback through the editorial system or via email by the assigned deadline.

Stage 6: Review Evaluation by Editorial Board

  • The Co-Editor(s)-in-Chief review all feedback for completeness, consistency, and quality.

  • In case of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be appointed.

  • Manuscripts may be accepted, rejected, or sent back to authors for revision based on reviewers’ recommendations.

Stage 7: Communicating Feedback to Authors

  • Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments and editorial decisions, including detailed guidance for revisions if applicable.

Stage 8: Author Revision and Resubmission

  • Authors revise their manuscript according to reviewer feedback and resubmit by the specified deadline.

Stage 9: Re-Evaluation of Revised Manuscript

  • Revised manuscripts are re-assessed by the original reviewers or editorial board members.

  • Further revisions may be requested or the manuscript may be accepted or rejected.

Stage 10: Final Acceptance and Proofreading

  • Once accepted, the manuscript undergoes final proofreading and formatting checks.

  • Authors and editors review proofs prior to publication.

Stage 11: Publication

  • The finalized manuscript is published online in EMID Journals, completing the peer review and publication process.

Timeline Overview

  • Initial Assessment: Within 1 week of submission

  • Peer Review: Typically 6 to 8 weeks

  • Revision Period: Variable, as communicated to authors

  • Final Decision and Publication: Following satisfactory revision and proofing

This workflow ensures a rigorous, fair, and transparent process while maintaining quality and integrity at every step.  

Author Declaration Statement : originality, authorship, ethics, conflicts, and copyright:

Agreement for EMID Journals Author Declaration Form points:

EMID Journals

Author Agreement & Declaration Form

For Submission to EMID Journals (Gold Open Access with Joint Copyright)

By submitting this manuscript, all authors agree to the terms and conditions below and confirm their understanding of EMID Journals’ editorial and publishing policies.

  1. Originality and Authenticity
  • The submitted manuscript is an original work, not previously published in whole or part.
  • It contains no plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or fabricated data.
  1. Multiple Submission Statement
  • The manuscript is not under consideration by any other publication.
  • Authors agree not to submit it elsewhere while under review at EMID Journals.
  1. Authorship Responsibility
  • All listed authors have made significant intellectual contributions and approve the manuscript.
  • No eligible authors have been omitted, and no honorary authorship is included.
  1. Corresponding Author Authority
  • The corresponding author has the authority to sign this agreement on behalf of all co-authors.
  • Specific contributions of each author are declared below.
  1. Authors’ Contributions

Author Name

Contribution (e.g., Conceptualisation, Data Analysis, Writing, Supervision)

  
  
  
  1. Acknowledgment of Others’ Work
  • Proper citations and acknowledgments have been made for all referenced materials, data, and funding.
  1. Conflict of Interest Declaration
  • All potential conflicts of interest are disclosed. (If none, state “None”).
  1. Data Integrity
  • Data presented are accurate and verifiable. Authors agree to provide data if requested by editors or reviewers.
  1. Compliance with Ethical Standards
  • The research complies with ethical standards, including institutional approvals for human/animal studies where applicable.
  • Documentation of ethical clearance can be provided upon request.
  1. Retraction and Misconduct Policy Acknowledgment
  • Authors acknowledge the journal’s right to retract or withdraw the manuscript in cases of ethical violations such as plagiarism or falsification.
  1. Licensing and Joint Copyright Agreement
  • Authors retain joint copyright ownership of the manuscript.
  • By accepting publication, authors license the manuscript to EMID Journals under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), allowing free access and reuse with proper attribution to all authors.
  • Authors grant EMID Journals a non-exclusive right to publish and distribute the work openly.
  • Authors retain moral rights and agree to collaboratively resolve any copyright disputes.
  1. Editorial Discretion
  • Final decisions on acceptance, revision, or rejection rest with the Co-Editor(s)-in-Chief, guided by peer review and editorial policies.
  1. Review Process Consent
  • Authors agree to fully cooperate with the double-blind peer review, including timely revisions and clarifications.
  1. ORCID and Identification
  • Authors agree to provide ORCID iDs for proper author identification.

Author(s) Information & Signatures

The corresponding author may sign on behalf of all authors provided contributions are clearly declared.

Full Name

ORCID iD

Email

Signature (or e-sign)

Date

 

    
 

 

   
     

By signing this form, the authors confirm that they have read, understood, and agreed to all the terms outlined above.