Editorial Process

At the Journal of Experimental and Integrative Medicine (JEIM), published by Gesdav, we follow a rigorous and transparent editorial and peer-review process designed to ensure scientific quality, ethical integrity, and fairness to authors, reviewers, and editors.

JEIM uses a single-blind peer-review model and seeks at least two independent review reports for each manuscript prior to an editorial decision. Final acceptance and rejection decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or an Academic Editor delegated by the Editor-in-Chief.

Overview of the Editorial Workflow

The editorial workflow consists of the following stages:

  1. Pre-check (Technical and Editorial Screening)

  2. Peer Review

  3. Revision and Re-Review (if required)

  4. Editorial Decision

  5. Author Appeals (if applicable)

  6. Production and Publication

1. Pre-check

The pre-screening stage includes two components:

1.1 Technical Pre-check (Editorial Office)

Immediately upon submission, the Managing Editor/Editorial Office performs a technical screening to verify:

  • Alignment with JEIM’s aims and scope (including Special Issues, if applicable)

  • Completeness of required sections (e.g., abstract, keywords, references, ethics statements)

  • Basic compliance with journal formatting and submission requirements

  • Ethical compliance indicators (e.g., ethics approval statement, informed consent statement, animal welfare statement, trial registration where relevant)

  • Overall readiness for editorial evaluation

1.2 Editorial Pre-check (Academic Editor)

After the technical check, an Academic Editor (Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, Guest Editor for a Special Issue, or an Editorial Board Member) evaluates:

  • Scientific relevance and novelty

  • Baseline methodological soundness

  • Appropriateness and currency of references

  • Overall scientific validity and suitability for peer review

At this stage, the Academic Editor may:

  • Reject the manuscript (desk rejection),

  • Request revisions prior to peer review, or

  • Proceed to peer review and recommend suitable reviewers.

Conflict-of-interest safeguard: Editors (including the Editor-in-Chief, Guest Editors, and Editorial Board Members) cannot handle or make decisions on their own submissions. In such cases, the manuscript is reassigned to an independent Editorial Board Member without conflicts of interest.

2. Peer Review

From submission to decision, a dedicated editorial staff member serves as the primary contact for authors, editors, and reviewers, ensuring smooth communication and process integrity.

  • Each manuscript sent for review receives a minimum of two independent reviewer reports.

  • Reviewers may be selected from JEIM’s reviewer database, Editorial Board recommendations, and/or through identification of qualified experts based on relevant publications.

  • Authors may suggest potential reviewers; these suggestions are considered if no conflicts exist.

  • Authors may also request exclusion of specific individuals; such requests are generally honored provided they do not compromise the integrity or fairness of review.

Reviewer Eligibility Criteria

All reviewers are expected to:

  • Have no conflicts of interest with any authors

  • Not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors

  • Not have collaborated or co-published with the authors within the last three years

  • Hold a PhD (or equivalent expertise)

  • Demonstrate relevant publication history and subject expertise (e.g., ORCID/Scopus/peer-reviewed track record)

  • Maintain a recognized academic or professional affiliation

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide a scientifically rigorous, constructive report

  • Maintain confidentiality

  • Submit reviews within the agreed timeline

  • Remain responsive during revision rounds where appropriate

(Review timelines may vary by manuscript type; extensions may be granted upon request.)

3. Revision

If the decision is minor revision or major revision, authors are invited to revise the manuscript and submit:

  • A revised manuscript (with changes clearly indicated where requested), and

  • A point-by-point response addressing every reviewer and editor comment.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers depending on:

  • The extent of revisions,

  • Reviewer requests to re-evaluate, and/or

  • Editorial judgment (especially for major revisions).

Typically, up to two rounds of major revisions are permitted. If revisions require extensive additional work and are expected to take more than two months, authors may be encouraged to withdraw and resubmit later to avoid prolonged delays.

4. Editorial Decision

After receiving the required reviews (normally at least two), the Academic Editor evaluates:

  • Suitability and independence of the selected reviewers

  • Quality and adequacy of reviewer feedback

  • Authors’ responses and the extent to which concerns were addressed

  • Scientific integrity and overall contribution of the manuscript

Possible outcomes include:

  • Accept (as is)

  • Accept with minor revisions

  • Major revision required

  • Reject (no resubmission encouraged)

  • Reject and encourage resubmission (substantially revised work may be submitted as a new manuscript)

  • Additional review required (e.g., third reviewer)

While reviewer recommendations are influential, final decisions rest with the Academic Editor. If an editor considers acceptance despite a recommendation to reject, a second independent editorial opinion may be requested before issuing the final decision.

Editorial independence: Editorial staff (including those employed by Gesdav) coordinate workflows and communications but do not make acceptance decisions.

5. Author Appeals

Authors who wish to appeal a rejection must contact the JEIM Editorial Office via email within three months of the decision date and provide:

  • A detailed justification, and

  • A point-by-point response to reviewer/editor comments (using the journal’s appeal format, if provided).

The Managing Editor forwards the appeal and manuscript history to an independent Editorial Board Member for advisory evaluation. The final determination is validated by the Editor-in-Chief. A rejection upheld at the appeal stage is final.

6. Production and Publication

Following acceptance, JEIM (published by Gesdav) manages production processes including:

  • Copyediting and language editing (as required)

  • Typesetting and formatting

  • Proof generation and author proof correction

  • Final publication and indexing preparation (where applicable)

  • Online First publication may be used before assignment to an issue

7. Publication Ethics

JEIM adheres to recognized best practices in publication ethics, including the principles promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The Editorial Office investigates ethical concerns (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, authorship disputes) following established procedures. Where needed, institutions or ethics committees may be consulted.

Authorship changes generally require written agreement from all authors; if disputes arise, JEIM may request official institutional clarification.

8. Publishing Standards and Reporting Guidelines

Where applicable, JEIM encourages compliance with internationally accepted reporting standards, including:

  • ICMJE Recommendations

  • CONSORT (clinical trials)

  • PRISMA (systematic reviews/meta-analyses)

  • ARRIVE (in vivo animal studies)

  • Data transparency principles and appropriate data availability statements

Plagiarism screening may be conducted during initial checks and/or before acceptance.

9. Our Editorial Commitment

Our goal is to publish scientifically sound work without artificially inflating rejection rates. JEIM prioritizes quality, rigor, ethical compliance, and contribution to biomedical knowledge, while maintaining a fair and efficient process for all stakeholders.