Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines (JEIM)

Journal of Experimental and Integrative Medicine (JEIM) — Published by Gesdav

We sincerely appreciate the scholars who dedicate their time and expertise to reviewing manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Experimental and Integrative Medicine (JEIM). Rigorous peer review is essential for maintaining scientific integrity, improving manuscript quality, and ensuring that JEIM publishes reliable and meaningful contributions to biomedical and integrative medicine.

1. Peer Review and Editorial Process

Peer review is central to JEIM’s publication workflow and ensures that all published articles meet high academic and ethical standards.

  • Initial Check: Upon submission, the Managing Editor performs an initial technical and administrative screening (scope, format, ethics statements, plagiarism checks where applicable).

  • Editorial Assessment: An Academic Editor (e.g., Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, or Editorial Board Member) evaluates the manuscript for relevance, novelty, and baseline scientific quality. The editor may (i) proceed to peer review, (ii) reject the manuscript, or (iii) request revisions prior to review.

  • External Review: Manuscripts sent for peer review are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

  • Decision: Based on reviewers’ reports and editorial judgment, the Academic Editor reaches a final decision: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. A second round of review may be requested when necessary.

JEIM aims for an objective, timely, and unbiased review process.

2. Reviewer Profile and Responsibilities

Reviewers safeguard the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing. Reviewers are expected to provide fair, constructive, and ethical assessments in accordance with widely recognized publication ethics (including COPE guidance).

Reviewers should typically:

  • Hold a PhD (or equivalent terminal degree) or demonstrate equivalent research expertise.

  • Have a strong publication record and subject-matter knowledge relevant to the manuscript.

  • Maintain independence and declare any potential conflicts of interest.

  • Provide reviews within the agreed timeline and remain engaged through revision rounds if needed.

3. General Guidelines for Reviewers

3.1 Review Invitation

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two experts. Reviewers are requested to:

  • Accept or decline promptly based on the title and abstract.

  • If declining, recommend alternative qualified reviewers (when possible).

  • Request a deadline extension early if additional time is required for a high-quality review.

3.2 Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest. Conflicts may include (but are not limited to):

  • Same institutional affiliation as one or more authors.

  • Co-authorship, collaboration, joint funding, or close academic relationship with any author within the last three years.

  • Personal relationships, rivalry, or animosity that may bias judgment.

  • Financial interests that could benefit or suffer based on publication outcomes.

  • Non-financial conflicts (personal, ideological, academic competition, or commercial interests).

If unsure whether a situation constitutes a conflict, reviewers should contact the Editorial Office before proceeding.

3.3 Confidentiality

JEIM follows a single-blind peer-review model (reviewers know authors; authors do not know reviewers). Reviewers must:

  • Treat manuscripts and all associated data as confidential.

  • Not share content with others unless permission is obtained from the Editorial Office.

  • Avoid revealing identity in comments or in file metadata (e.g., Word/PDF author properties).

  • Seek approval from the Editorial Office before involving a colleague.

3.4 Preparing the Review Report

Review reports must be written in English and should be constructive, specific, and evidence-based.

Key expectations

  • Read the full manuscript and supplementary files carefully (methods, data, tables, and figures).

  • Provide feedback on both the overall study and specific sections.

  • Focus primarily on scientific rigor and clarity (language and formatting can be corrected later).

  • Avoid requesting unnecessary citations, including citations to your own work or close colleagues unless truly essential.

  • Maintain a professional tone; disrespectful or dismissive language is unacceptable.

  • If the review does not meet quality standards, the Editorial Office may request revision or may exclude the review.

Use of AI tools
To protect confidentiality and intellectual property, reviewers should not upload manuscripts (in whole or in part) into external AI tools or systems. If JEIM/ Gesdav provides an approved secure tool for editorial workflows, reviewers will be informed accordingly.

Reporting standards (when applicable)
Reviewers are encouraged to note compliance issues with appropriate reporting guidelines, for example:

  • CONSORT (clinical trials)

  • PRISMA (systematic reviews/meta-analyses)

  • ARRIVE (in vivo animal research)

  • ICMJE recommendations (medical research reporting and authorship)

  • Data transparency and availability expectations where relevant

Recommended Structure of Your Review

Your review report should include:

  1. Brief summary (one paragraph): aim, major contributions, and strengths.

  2. General comments: major issues affecting validity, novelty, and interpretation.

  3. Specific comments: numbered points with references to sections/figures/tables/line numbers where possible.

  4. Ethics & transparency checks: ethics approval, informed consent, animal welfare, data availability, trial registration (if applicable).

  5. Overall recommendation (see Section 3.6).

3.5 Evaluation Criteria (Manuscript Rating)

Reviewers are invited to assess:

  • Scope & Fit: Is the manuscript aligned with JEIM’s aims and scope?

  • Novelty: Is the research question original and well-defined?

  • Significance: Are results meaningful and interpreted appropriately?

  • Scientific Soundness: Is the design appropriate, methods rigorous, and analysis valid?

  • Reproducibility: Are methods described in sufficient detail for replication?

  • Quality of Presentation: Are figures/tables clear, accurate, and consistent with the text?

  • Conclusions: Do conclusions follow logically from the data?

  • Ethics & Compliance: Are ethical approvals and consent statements adequate?

  • References: Are citations relevant and reasonably up-to-date (e.g., recent literature where appropriate) without excessive self-citation?

  • Language Clarity: Is the English clear and understandable?

Publication ethics reminders

  • Manuscripts must be original and not under consideration elsewhere.

  • Text reuse must be properly cited and permitted.

  • If you suspect plagiarism, fabricated data, image manipulation, authorship issues, or other misconduct, inform the Editorial Office immediately.

3.6 Overall Recommendation

Please select one recommendation and justify it clearly:

  • Accept in Present Form: Suitable for publication with no changes.

  • Minor Revisions: Acceptable after small revisions (clarity, minor analysis, formatting, limited additional explanation).

  • Major Revisions: Potentially publishable, but substantial revisions are required (methods, analysis, missing controls, major interpretation issues, or additional data/experiments if essential).

  • Reject: Fundamental flaws, lack of novelty, or insufficient scientific validity.

Your recommendation is confidential and visible only to the JEIM editors and the publisher’s editorial office (Gesdav). All editorial decisions must be supported with clear reasoning based on scientific and ethical standards.