Peer Review Process

Review Process

The European Journal of Molecular Pharmacy (EJMP) follows a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly research in molecular pharmacy, pharmaceutical sciences, pharmacology, medicinal chemistry, nanomedicine, and related biomedical disciplines.

The journal adheres to internationally recognized ethical publishing standards and follows the best practice guidelines recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) .

EJMP is committed to maintaining academic integrity, impartial evaluation, scientific rigor, and ethical scholarly communication throughout the editorial and peer review process.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening conducted by the editorial office and the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned handling editor.

This preliminary assessment evaluates whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the aims and scope of EJMP and related pharmaceutical or biomedical disciplines
  • Meets the journal’s formatting, submission, and language requirements
  • Demonstrates sufficient scientific quality, originality, and relevance
  • Complies with ethical research and publication standards

Manuscripts that fail to meet these requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

Plagiarism and Ethical Screening

All submitted manuscripts are subject to plagiarism detection and ethical evaluation. EJMP strictly prohibits:

  • Plagiarism or substantial similarity with previously published work
  • Data fabrication, falsification, or manipulation
  • Duplicate submission or redundant publication
  • Unethical pharmaceutical, biomedical, clinical, or laboratory research practices

If ethical concerns are identified, the journal follows COPE guidelines and internationally accepted ethical procedures to investigate and resolve the matter.

Peer Review Model

The European Journal of Molecular Pharmacy (EJMP) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure fairness, transparency, academic integrity, and unbiased evaluation of all submitted manuscripts. Under this review model, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the entire review and editorial decision-making process.

After successful completion of the initial editorial screening, manuscripts that meet the journal’s scope, quality, and ethical requirements are assigned to an appropriate handling editor. The handling editor appoints at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant expertise in molecular pharmacy, pharmaceutical sciences, pharmacology, medicinal chemistry, nanomedicine, biomedical sciences, or related research areas.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, publication record, and prior peer review experience to ensure a competent, objective, and scientifically rigorous evaluation process.

During peer review, reviewers critically assess manuscripts on the basis of several scholarly and scientific criteria, including originality, novelty, and scientific significance of the research; relevance to the aims and scope of the journal; scientific validity, methodological rigor, and experimental design; accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility of data and results; quality of statistical analysis and interpretation of findings; clarity, organization, and technical presentation of the manuscript; adequacy, relevance, and currency of references and literature review; compliance with ethical standards, research integrity, and reporting guidelines; and the overall contribution of the study to molecular pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences.

Based on their evaluation, reviewers provide detailed comments and recommendations to the editor, generally categorized as Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Reviewer comments are communicated anonymously to the authors to support the improvement of the manuscript’s scientific quality, clarity, and academic contribution.

In cases where reviewer recommendations differ significantly, the editor may seek additional independent reviews or conduct a further editorial assessment before making a final decision.

EJMP maintains strict confidentiality throughout the peer review and editorial process and adheres to internationally recognized publication ethics standards and the best practice recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Reviewer comments are shared with authors to support the improvement of scientific quality, clarity, and overall manuscript presentation.

If reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek additional independent reviews or conduct a further editorial assessment before making a final decision.

Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response letter explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

For manuscripts requiring major revisions, the revised version may be returned to the original reviewers for additional evaluation before a final editorial decision is reached.

Final Decision

The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned handling editor based on reviewer recommendations, editorial assessment, and the scientific merit of the work.

Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by commercial interests, institutional pressures, or external factors.

Transparency and Fairness

EJMP is committed to ensuring that:

  • Manuscripts are evaluated solely on scientific and scholarly merit
  • There is no discrimination based on race, gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, or political beliefs
  • Potential conflicts of interest are disclosed and appropriately managed
  • Confidentiality is maintained throughout the editorial and peer review process

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office for further consideration.

Appeals are evaluated objectively and may involve additional independent review where appropriate.

All ethical complaints, disputes, and appeals are handled in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations established by COPE.