Peer Review Process
EUMJ operates a strict double-blind peer review system aligned with COPE, ICMJE, and WAME standards.
The Four Guiding Principles
Double-Blind
Author identities are concealed from reviewers and reviewer identities are concealed from authors throughout the process.
Minimum Two Reviewers
Each manuscript receives at least two independent external peer reviews from experts in the relevant sub-discipline.
Tie-Breaker Review
If reviewer recommendations conflict significantly (e.g., one Accept, one Reject), the Associate Editor assigns a third blind reviewer.
Time-Bound
Every stage has a defined timeline, from initial screening through final decision.
Five Stages, ~52 Days
From initial screening to final decision, every submission follows a defined timeline.
- 01Days 1–7
Initial Desk Screening
The Managing Editor reviews the submission for page count, alignment with the journal's scope, and basic English proficiency, while running a similarity check through Turnitin/iThenticate.
- 02Days 8–12
Associate Editor Evaluation
The manuscript is assigned to a faculty-specific Associate Editor, who assesses its scientific merit and either recommends a desk rejection or identifies qualified external reviewers.
- 03Days 13–40
External Peer Review
The manuscript is sent to a minimum of two independent external reviewers specializing in the relevant sub-discipline. Each reviewer has 28 days to complete the evaluation.
- 04Within 7 days of review receipt
Editorial Decision
The Associate Editor synthesizes the reviews and submits a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, whose final decision is one of: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
- 05Days 48–52
Executive Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief reviews the complete file and issues the formal decision. Accepted manuscripts then enter production and publication.
Six Evaluation Criteria
Every reviewer assesses the manuscript against these six core criteria.
Originality & Novelty
The presence of a genuine research gap addressed by the work.
Methodological Sufficiency
Appropriateness and reproducibility of the research design.
Analytical Precision
Correct application of statistical or qualitative methods.
Evidence-Backed Conclusions
Alignment between the findings presented and the interpretation offered.
Bibliographic Relevance
Currency and comprehensiveness of the literature review.
Ethical Rigor
Disclosure of conflicts of interest, ethical clearance, and citation integrity.
Editorial Decisions
After the review rounds conclude, the Editor-in-Chief issues one of four formal decisions.
Accept without changes
Rare upon initial submission.The manuscript is ready for publication.
Minor Revision
The author must make minor modifications, typically within 14 days, which are reviewed internally by the Associate Editor.
Major Revision
Significant flaws or data gaps must be addressed. The author submits a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response within 21 days for a second round of external peer review.
Reject
The work contains structural flaws, lacks novelty, or fails to address core research criteria. The processing cycle ends.
Confidentiality & Ethical Standards
All parties involved in the review process — editors, reviewers, and editorial staff — are bound by strict confidentiality. Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents and are not shared, discussed, or disclosed outside the editorial workflow.
Reviewer identities are never disclosed to authors, and author identities are never disclosed to reviewers.
Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest before accepting an invitation and must recuse themselves where a conflict exists.
Reviewers may not use, share, or retain any part of a manuscript they have reviewed, for any purpose, without written permission from the author.
Editorial decisions are based solely on the academic merit of the manuscript.