Peer Review Policy

EHEMJ follows a double-blind review policy, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. The corresponding author is notified as soon as possible of the editor's decision to accept, reject, or require revisions.

Peer Review Process

The initial review by the editorial committee takes 2 to 3 days. The review stage takes 2-3 months, and all accepted articles will be published according to the publishing schedule (which may take 3-5 months).
The peer review process at EHEMJ comprises the following stages:
1. Manuscript Submission: Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s submission system.
2. Preliminary Evaluation: The editorial board conducts an initial screening to assess the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s scope and its overall scholarly quality.
3. Reviewer Assignment: Suitable manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent and qualified reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, academic background, and publication record in the relevant field. The journal strives to ensure diversity by selecting reviewers from various geographical regions and scientific disciplines.
4. Review Process: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide detailed comments along with a recommendation: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. The journal monitors the performance of reviewers to ensure timely and high-quality feedback. Reviewers who consistently provide constructive and timely evaluations are prioritized for future assignments.
5. Editorial Decision: The editorial board reviews the feedback from the reviewers and makes a final decision based on their recommendations. The final decision is made by the editor-in-chief, taking into account the reviewers' recommendations, the manuscript's overall quality, and its contribution to the field. The editorial board ensures that decisions are fair, objective, and based on clear criteria.
6. Author Notification: The final decision is communicated to the author, along with the reviewers’ comments and any required revisions. The journal is committed to maintaining transparent and timely communication with authors. All queries and concerns from authors are addressed promptly, and regular updates are provided throughout the review process.

Review Timeline

The estimated timeline for the peer review process is as follows:
Initial screening by the editorial committee: within 2 to 3 days after submission
Peer review stage: typically completed within 3 to 5 months.
Publication: All accepted articles will be published according to the journal’s publishing schedule, which may take 3 to 5 months.
In cases where reviewers do not respond within the expected timeframe, the editorial board takes necessary actions, such as assigning alternative reviewers or sending reminders, to ensure the timely completion of the review process.

Open Access Policy

EHEMJ adheres to an open access policy, ensuring that all accepted articles are published under a Creative Commons license. This allows unrestricted access to the research content while protecting the authors' rights.

Conflict of Interest Policy

Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may compromise their objectivity or impartiality during the review process.

How to Appeal a Reviewer Decision in EHEMJ

1. Check the Journal's Appeal Policy:
Before taking any action, carefully read the journal’s official guidelines regarding appeals. Most reputable journals, such as those published by Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, or Nature Publishing Group, have clear policies on how authors can appeal editorial decisions.
2. Prepare a Formal Appeal Letter:
Your appeal should be professional, respectful, and well-structured. It typically includes:
Manuscript ID and Title: To help the editor identify your submission quickly.
Clear Reasons for Appeal: Focus on specific, factual inaccuracies, misunderstandings, or perceived unfairness in the reviewers’ reports.
Point-by-Point Rebuttal: Respond respectfully to the reviewers’ comments, especially highlighting where you believe the reviewer made errors or misinterpretations.
Supporting Evidence: If possible, provide additional data, references, or clarifications to support your case.
3. Submit the Appeal to the Editor:
Send your appeal to the journal’s editorial office, typically addressed to the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor. Some journals require appeals to be submitted through their manuscript submission system; others prefer email.
4. Await Further Instructions:
After receiving your appeal, the editorial team will usually:

• Review your letter.

• Possibly consult the original reviewers or independent new reviewers.

• Make a decision to either uphold the original rejection, request revisions, or reconsider the manuscript.

5. Stay Professional:
Appeals should never be emotional, accusatory, or disrespectful. Even if you strongly disagree with the reviewers, maintain a calm and factual tone.

Important Tips

Timing is important: Appeals must be submitted within a specific time frame after the denial (often within 30 days).
Grounds for a Successful Appeal: Appeals are more likely to succeed if you can demonstrate factual errors, bias, or misinterpretations by the reviewers — not simply because you disagree with their opinions.
Not a Second Review: Appealing is not an opportunity to revise and resubmit a substantially improved manuscript; it’s strictly a challenge to the fairness or accuracy of the initial review.
In EHEMJ, the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is made by the editor-in-chief or a designated handling editor, not by the peer reviewers themselves. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the specific subject area of the manuscript. They are usually established researchers or professionals with significant publications and experience in the relevant field. Editors carefully choose reviewers to ensure objectivity, confidentiality, and lack of conflict of interest. The reviewers provide detailed evaluations and recommendations, but the editor is responsible for weighing their comments and making an independent and fair final decision based on the overall quality, originality, and contribution of the manuscript.

Independence and impartiality in the reviewing process

The EHEMJ implements strict mechanisms to manage conflicts of interest during the peer review process. Editors and editorial board members carefully select reviewers who have no recent collaborations, institutional affiliations, or personal relationships with the authors. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts before accepting a review assignment, and if a conflict exists, they are required to decline participation. Editors and editorial board members must also disclose their own conflicts and recuse themselves from handling any manuscript where impartiality could be compromised. These policies ensure that decisions are based solely on the scientific quality of the manuscript, maintaining the integrity and fairness of the publication process.

Evaluation Criteria

The criteria used by the judges to evaluate the papers include the following:

• Originality and innovation of the research.

• Accuracy of methodology and validity.

• Relevance to the journal's subject area.

• Clarity of writing and presentation.

• Contribution to the specialized field.

Ethical monitoring

EHEMJ strictly follows ethical guidelines during the peer review process to ensure fairness and research integrity. Key principles include maintaining confidentiality, ensuring objectivity and impartiality, disclosing conflicts of interest, providing constructive feedback, and upholding transparency and accountability. These guidelines, based on standards from organizations like COPE and ICMJE, aim to safeguard the credibility and quality of academic research.
EHEMJ adheres to stringent ethical standards concerning plagiarism, data fabrication, and other forms of research misconduct. The journal follows the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). It employs plagiarism detection tools to screen submissions and expects authors to ensure their work is free from plagiarism, including self-plagiarism. Instances of plagiarism or data fabrication may lead to manuscript rejection, retraction of published articles, and notification of the authors' affiliated institutions. The journal also requires authors to disclose any conflicts of interest and obtain ethical approval for studies involving human or animal subjects. In cases of misconduct, EHEMJ may take corrective actions, including retraction of articles and reporting to relevant authorities.

Editorial Board and Selected Committee of the Editorial Board

The details of all members of the journal's editorial board and selected committee of the editorial board, including: name and surname, email address, contact number, specialization and field of study, and organizational affiliation, are available on the journal's website at https://ehemj.com/page/13/Editorial-Board.
Roles and Responsibilities: The roles and responsibilities of the editorial board and the selected committee of the editorial board are clearly outlined as follows:

• Editor-in-Chief: Oversees the editorial process, ensures adherence to ethical standards, and makes final decisions regarding publication.

• Associate Editors: Manage specific sections of the journal and coordinate peer reviews.

• Editorial Board Members: Provide guidance on the journal's policies, contribute to strategic planning, and assist with peer review processes.