The European Journal of Medical Practitioners (EJMP) welcomes the submission of original, high-quality manuscripts that contribute to the advancement of medical science and healthcare practice. Authors are requested to ensure that all required documents are submitted to facilitate an efficient editorial and peer-review process.

Required Submission Documents

Authors should submit the following materials at the time of manuscript submission:

• Manuscript in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) format.
• Complete author information, including full names, institutional affiliations, corresponding author details, and email addresses.
• ORCID iD for all authors (where available).
• References formatted according to the journal's required citation style, including accurate DOI numbers or direct URLs whenever available.
• A Cover Letter addressed to the Editor-in-Chief confirming the originality of the work and its exclusive submission to EJMP.
• Ethical Approval documentation or Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for studies involving human participants, animals, or other research requiring ethical clearance.
• Conflict of Interest Statement signed or approved by all authors.
• A Plagiarism Report generated using Turnitin or an equivalent similarity detection software. Authors are responsible for ensuring that the manuscript complies with the journal's plagiarism policy before submission.
• Funding Statement (if applicable).
• Author Contribution Statement describing the individual contributions of each author.
• Supplementary files, datasets, figures, or reporting checklists (where applicable).

Submission of a manuscript confirms that all authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to its submission to the European Journal of Medical Practitioners (EJMP).

Reviewer Guidelines

The European Journal of Medical Practitioners (EJMP) recognizes the essential role of reviewers in maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and credibility of published research. Peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing, and reviewers are expected to provide fair, objective, and constructive evaluations that assist editors in making informed publication decisions and help authors improve their manuscripts.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and without bias.
• Assess the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of the submitted work.
• Provide constructive, evidence-based comments and recommendations.
• Maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process.
• Declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
• Complete reviews within the requested timeframe whenever possible.
• Notify the Editorial Office if they are unable to complete the review or require additional time.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should consider the following aspects when assessing a manuscript:

• Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal.
• Originality, novelty, and scientific significance.
• Clarity of the research objectives and study rationale.
• Appropriateness of the study design and research methodology.
• Validity and reliability of the data and statistical analyses.
• Accuracy of interpretation and discussion of results.
• Organization, clarity, and quality of writing.
• Adequacy and currency of references.
• Compliance with ethical standards and research integrity.
• Overall contribution to medical knowledge and clinical practice.

Review Recommendations

Following their evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

• Accept without revisions.
• Accept with minor revisions.
• Major revisions required.
• Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory in nature. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript rests solely with the Editorial Office and the Editor-in-Chief.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or discuss manuscript content with any individual without prior authorization from the Editorial Office. Unpublished information obtained during the peer-review process must not be used for personal, academic, or commercial advantage.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline invitations to review manuscripts if they have financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, or personal relationships that could compromise—or reasonably be perceived to compromise—their impartiality. Any potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed promptly to the Editorial Office.

Constructive and Professional Feedback

Review reports should be respectful, objective, and focused on improving the scientific quality of the manuscript. Comments should be clear, specific, and supported by appropriate reasoning. Personal criticism, inappropriate language, or discriminatory remarks are unacceptable and should be avoided.

Ethical Responsibilities

If reviewers suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, data fabrication or falsification, unethical research practices, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or any other form of publication misconduct, they should immediately notify the Editorial Office and provide sufficient supporting information to facilitate further investigation.

Reviewer Recognition

The European Journal of Medical Practitioners (EJMP) sincerely appreciates the valuable time, expertise, and dedication of its reviewers. Their contributions play a vital role in maintaining the journal's high editorial standards, promoting scientific excellence, and advancing the quality and integrity of medical research worldwide.