Review process

The editorial team supports global standards for transparency in the peer review process. The review procedure is focused on the most objective assessment of a manuscript and its compliance with publication ethics, editorial policy, and journal requirements.

The purpose of peer review is to provide the author(s) with objective recommendations from a reviewer who is an expert in the relevant field of medicine; it is aimed at improving the manuscript and ensuring the highest global scientific standards.

To improve publication quality, ensure compliance with the publication ethics and editorial policy, and prevent scientific misconduct, all manuscripts are checked for signs of academic plagiarism using the StrikePlagiarism program and undergo editorial evaluation and an independent double-blind review.

Only the manuscripts that are valuable from a scientific point of view, contribute to the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, and address current clinical, preventive, and medical and social issues in Ukraine and abroad are recommended for publication.

Manuscript review time frames:

• editorial evaluation – up to 2 weeks;
• review process – 10-12 weeks;
• first decision – up to 14 weeks.

Acceptance rate: 71% (as of 2025)

Review type. Manuscripts submitted to the editorial office are reviewed using the double-blind peer review procedure, in which reviewers and author(s) remain anonymous to each other during and after the review process.

The review process involves: submission of the manuscript, preliminary review by the editor, sending the paper to two independent experts for anonymous analysis, obtaining conclusions, making a final decision on publication/rejection or an interim decision on the need for revision and corrections; further actions are taken in accordance with the journal's policy. 

1. Manuscript A corresponding author sends the manuscript to the journal's e-mail (EUMJ@med.sumdu.edu.ua) or through the electronic submission system.
2. Editorial evaluation of the manuscript. The journal secretary checks whether the manuscript complies with the formal requirements (formatting, citations, reference list, manuscript structure, etc.) according to the guidelines for authors. All manuscripts are checked for plagiarism and self-plagiarism using the StrikePlagiarism.com system. If plagiarism is detected, an analysis of the identified violations of academic integrity is conducted in accordance with COPE recommendations and journal policy. If the number of borrowings exceeds 35%, the manuscript is immediately rejected and not submitted for review. If the level of textual borrowing is less than 35%, the editorial board analyzes the identified signs of possible scientific misconduct and then decides on the manuscript. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed within two weeks of their receipt.
3. Editor-in-chief's assessment. The editor-in-chief evaluates the manuscript for compliance with the scientific profile of the journal, relevance, originality, interest to the potential audience, correctness, and structure.  A manuscript may be rejected at this stage, without further review, if:

• it falls outside the scope of the journal;
• study type or study design is not specified;
• sample size is missing, or the study population is defined unclearly;
• insufficient description of methods, which makes it impossible to reproduce the study;
• lack of or incorrectly described statistical analysis (for quantitative studies);
• the results do not contain numerical data;
• non-compliance with reporting standards depending on the type of study (CONSORT, STROBE, CARE, PRISMA);
• information on ethical approval and/or informed consent is missing (for the studies involving humans);
• conclusions do not match the results or contain unfounded causal statements;
• IMRAD structure not followed;
• poor grammar or low-quality translation.

4. Invitation of reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief sends invitation letters to scholars from among the leading scientists, experienced researchers, and practicing specialists who are experts in the relevant field of medical sciences. Potential reviewers should be conducting research on the respective topic, have articles recently published in Scopus/WoS issues, adhere to the principles of publication ethics and academic integrity, and be able to conduct qualified, independent, and impartial scientific expertise. Each manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers from different organizations.
5. Reviewers' response. Potential reviewers should familiarize themselves with the manuscript, assess whether it aligns with their scientific profile, and check for any potential conflicts of interest. They can accept or decline the invitation to review a manuscript. They can also recommend other reviewers.
6. Review procedure. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria: originality of the scientific results, methodology of the scientific research, clarity and validity of the conclusions, comprehensiveness of the reference sources, correctness of the citations, adherence to scientific integrity, etc. Editing and correcting stylistic errors are not part of the review process, but the reviewer may, among other things, recommend to authors to proofread the text or perform certain corrections to the language and style of the manuscript. In some cases, the manuscript may be returned to the author(s) for a thorough linguistic and stylistic editing.
7. Reviewers' conclusions. Reviewers provide the reasoned conclusions regarding the reviewed manuscript with appropriate recommendations: to recommend the article for publication, recommend the article for publication after the author’s minor revision (according to the reviewer’s recommendations), send to a re-review after the author’s substantial revision (according to the reviewer’s recommendations), or reject the manuscript. Comments provided by a reviewer are strictly confidential and are designated exclusively for the editorial team. They will not be transferred to the authors in their original form. Editors may select, paraphrase, or refer to reviewer comments in their communications with authors.
8. Communication with the author. The responsible secretary sends the decision to the author via email, along with the reviewers' relevant comments. If the manuscript is rejected or requires revision, the author is notified with the reviewers' reasoned conclusions and their comments on improving the quality of the manuscript. If the manuscript has been sent to the author for revision, the updated version is returned to the reviewer for evaluation of the corrections.
9. Final decision.  If the reviewers' comments were minor, the editor-in-chief may evaluate them and make the final decision regarding publication. If the reviewers' recommendations differ greatly and their conclusions are opposite (accept/reject), the editorial board, along with the reviewers, considers all comments to reach a final decision. If a decision cannot be made, the editor-in-chief may appoint an additional independent reviewer. The editor-in-chief makes the final decision on the publication of the manuscript.

Members of the editorial board and editorial staff do not participate in discussions and decision-making regarding manuscripts authored by themselves, their family members, or persons with whom they have a potential conflict of interest. All such manuscripts are subject to editorial evaluation, double-blind peer review, and discussion without the participation of the interested party.

If the editor-in-chief has a conflict of interest regarding submitted or reviewed manuscripts, the deputy editor-in-chief makes the final decision.

Appeals procedure

Adhering to the principles of publication ethics and COPE recommendations, the editorial board conscientiously and impartially considers complaints, comments, and suggestions from all participants of the publication process. If the authors disagree with certain comments of the reviewer, they have the right to send an appeal to the editorial office in the form of "reviewer's comment – author's comment." This document is sent to the reviewer and, together with the editorial team, a decision is made regarding the manuscript. Based on the results of the appeal consideration, the editorial office communicates a reasoned response to the author. If a decision cannot be made, the editorial board appoints an independent expert.