Open Access Policy

All research articles published in European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences are fully open access: immediately freely available to read, download, and share. Articles are published under the terms of a Creative Commons license, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium (not for commercial use), provided the original work is properly cited. Articles can be freely downloaded from our website, and no subscription and/or login is required.

A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials are deposited immediately upon initial publication in a suitable standard electronic format in the CLOCKSS repository.

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.


Description of Peer-Review

Papers submitted for consideration must adhere to the editorial criteria outlined in the Authors’ guidelines. Only those papers that meet these criteria are likely to undergo formal review.

European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences adopts a single-blind peer review. Reviewers are anonymous unless they want to identify themselves by including their names in the review on our submission system. Selected reviewers need to declare the absence of a conflict of interest in order to proceed with the review process.

All contributions are initially handled by the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who, together with Associate Editors (AE) and the Editorial Team, make the initial evaluation of the manuscript by verifying whether it falls within the aims and scope of the journal and adheres to journal guidelines and policies. Following this, the manuscript may proceed to peer review or be rejected. Papers deemed weak or unsuitable by the editors are promptly rejected without external review. However, these decisions may be informed by informal input from specialists in the field. After this step, the EiC or an AE assigns the manuscript to 2 or 3 reviewers, among the editorial board members or external reviewers who are expert in the field. To be selected, reviewers must not have published papers in the last 5 years with none of the authors of the manuscript, must belong to different institutions from authors and must not have any personal or financial conflict of interest with the authors or the content of the manuscript. Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we base our choice on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience of a reviewer’s characteristics. Reviewers should bear in mind that these messages contain confidential information, which should be treated as such. Authors may suggest independent reviewers, but the journal will only consider these suggestions upon verifying the reviewers’ identity and expertise and ensuring no conflicts of interest exist between the authors and the proposed reviewers. Following the recommendations from the reviewers, the EiC, or an AE, will evaluate them and have final authority on acceptance, revision or rejection. In the final decision, the EiC evaluates the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and may also consider other information not available to either party. The journal may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We take reviewers’ criticisms seriously; in particular, we are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, we may consult the other reviewers as to whether she/he is applying an unduly critical standard.

Following the reviewers’ evaluations, the Editors deliberate on various options. They may opt to accept the submission, either with or without requiring revisions. Alternatively, they might suggest revisions to the authors, indicating specific areas for improvement before a final decision is made. In some cases, a rejection may be warranted, but with guidance for the authors on how further work could potentially justify a resubmission. Manuscripts may be rejected outright, typically due to limited relevance to the specialist audience, lack of originality, insufficient advancement in concepts, or significant technical or interpretational flaws.

Authors’ Appeals

Articles that have been rejected may be resubmitted solely if all concerns outlined in the rejection feedback are thoroughly rectified and accompanied by a detailed letter delineating the resolution of these concerns. In no circumstances will an article be reconsidered if it was rejected due to significant issues.

The journal is open to authentic appeals concerning editorial decisions. Any appeal can be sent to via an official letter signed by all authors, including the specific responses to any comments made by reviewers for rejection and any new information or data that the authors wish the journal to consider. It is imperative to substantiate your case with compelling evidence or novel data in response to the feedback provided by the editor and reviewers.

The Editor in Chief evaluates the authors’ argument alongside the reviewers’ reports to determine whether an additional opinion is necessary. The journal will promptly inform the authors’ about the outcome of the complaint. The Editor in Chief may either uphold the initial decision or invite authors to submit a revised version of the manuscript with updated information. Note that decisions on appeals are final. Please refrain from appealing the journal’s decision unless you can furnish a substantial body of evidence to support your complaint.


The journal evaluates all manuscript submissions as expeditiously as possible. Nonetheless, the duration of the peer-review process may vary depending on factors such as the availability of reviewers, the author’s response to revision timelines, and the extent of revisions needed. For instance, if there are conflicting reports from reviewers or if a report is delayed, additional expert opinions may be solicited. Additionally, revised manuscripts typically undergo reassessment by the original reviewers for feedback. Reviewers may also request multiple revisions of a manuscript. The editorial office responds promptly to authors upon receiving feedback from reviewers. Therefore, authors should only contact the editorial office in cases of significant delay, defined as exceeding 2 months since the last feedback.

Specific Policies

  • Submission by the Editor in Chief or Co-Editor in Chief: The Editor-in-Chief and Co-Editor in Chief do not handle their own submissions. Editorial Board Members, free from any conflict of interest, oversee the handling of submissions, assigning each manuscript to a minimum of two external reviewers. Final decisions regarding submissions are made by other Editorial Board Members who have no conflicts of interest with the authors. The annual total submissions should not exceed a reasonable number.
  • Submission by Editorial Board Members: Editorial Board Members can submit papers to the journal. However, these submissions do not receive preferential treatment or priority over other manuscripts, and being an Editorial Board Member does not influence editorial decisions. A paper submitted by Editorial Board Members will be handled by Editorial Board Members with no conflicts of interest with the manuscript or authors. They select at least two independent reviewers as per journal policy. Decisions are made by the Editorial Board Members who do not have a conflict of interest with the author and manuscript. Editorial Board Members are not authorized to contact or request information about the peer-review process to other members of the editorial board or the Editor in Chief.
  • Submission by an author with the same institution of the Editor in Chief or Editorial Board Members: A manuscript submitted by an author who may have a conflict of interest due to affiliation with the same institution, familial relationship, or any other connection with the Editor in Chief or an Editorial Board Member, will be assigned to an Editorial Board Member who does not have any conflicts of interest with the authors. This measure aims to prevent any potential perception of bias. The editor will select external reviewers and make all decisions on the paper.
  • Potential COI for Reviewers: The invitation letter to reviewers includes the following paragraph: “If you know or think you know the identity of the author, and if you feel there is any potential COI in your refereeing this paper because of your relationship with the author (e.g., in terms of close friendship or conflict/rivalry) or for any other reason, please declare it. By accepting this invitation, it is assumed there is no potential COI”. Standard policy will be not to use a referee if a COI has been declared, but the editors may use their discretion after consulting with one another. For more information, check the COI section.

Publication Ethics and Recommendations

European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences follows the guidelines on Good Publication Practice: COPE and ICMJE. These guidelines aim to ensure that articles are published in a responsible and ethical manner.

Moreover, in accordance with the ICMJE’s Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, we expect that authors, reviewers and editors follow the best-practice guidelines on ethical behavior.

Some specific information about the responsibilities of authors, the journal, and reviewers as follows:

  • Authors and the Journal have to follow the Good Publication Practice: COPE and ICMJE guidelines. Please, also check the Scientific Misconduct, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction guidelines from ICMJE.
  • Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci, authors, and reviewers have to guarantee confidentiality and do not have to share information about manuscripts, including peer-review, their content or status in the review process, criticism by reviewers, and the final decision about rejection or acceptance, to anyone other than the authors and reviewers.
  • Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci and reviewers have to ensure the timely processing of manuscripts. On the other hand, authors have to ensure timely communication and availability to reply to concerns during the review and publication process.
  • Peer review is the most critical assessment of the scientific process and should be followed rigorously. Specific information about our peer-review process can be found above.
  • Integrity should be the standpoint of both authors and the journal. The Editorial decisions about the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript should be based on the research’s originality, contribution to the scientific society, relevance to the topic of the journal, and quality standards. Those decisions should not be jeopardized by commercial interests or personal relations.
  • The spread of academic culture and scientific knowledge should also support diversity and inclusion for authors as well as reviewers, editorial board members and editorial staff.


Instructions for Reviewers

Peer-review is the cornerstone of the scientific process, ensuring that only high-quality research with significant scientific merit reaches publication, thereby fostering trust within the scientific community. By meticulously scrutinizing the methodology, data analysis, and interpretation presented in manuscripts, reviewers contribute significantly to maintaining the standards of excellence expected in scientific research.

Reviewers should adhere to the basic principles as established by COPE.

As per journal policies, the peer-review is conducted for transparency on Publishing Manager. Therefore, the reviewers are asked to create an account in the system to receive an official invitation to review an article. Following the invitation to review, reviewers will receive the article abstract to assess the aims, key points, and conclusions of the manuscript and decide whether to accept the review.

Before starting the review, please, evaluate the following issues:

  • Does the article match my expertise? If not, you can refuse the review and suggest a possible reviewer who is an expert in the field.
  • Do I have enough time to review the manuscript?
  • Are there any potential conflicts of interest to declare? For more information, please, check the section “COI: Application to Reviewers and Editors.

Once the request for review has been accepted, reviewers have 21 days to finalize the report.

Reviewers have four options to provide an overall feedback on the article:

  • Accepted: The paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
  • Revised: Minor revisions must be addressed by the authors before the paper can be considered for publication.
  • Revised Major: The manuscript presents severe criticisms that must be addressed by the authors. The paper’s corrections will be re-evaluated by the reviewers, who will decide whether to accept the article or reject it.
  • Rejected: The article presents significant flaws that cannot be addressed.

How to write a report

When reviewing the article, please give due consideration to the following items:


  • Is the topic of the paper aligned with the aims and scopes of the Journal? Does the study bring any innovation to the medical field? Are there other similar studies in the literature? Does the study meet the qualitative standard of the Journal? Are the findings of sufficient scientific significance to warrant publication? Does sufficient literature evidence support the outcomes?


  • Title: Does the title clearly describe the article?
  • Abstract: Does the Abstract reflect the content of the article?
  • Introduction: Does the introduction outline the author’s objectives and clearly articulate the problem under investigation? Typically, the introduction should provide a succinct summary of pertinent research to offer context and elucidate how the author’s findings either challenge or expand upon existing literature.
  • Methodology: Does the author accurately describe the data collection process? Is the chosen methodology appropriate for addressing the research question? Is there adequate information provided for replication? Does the article detail the procedures followed in a logical manner? If novel methods are employed, are they sufficiently elucidated? Was the sampling method appropriate? Are equipment and materials adequately described? Does the article specify the type of data collected and provide precise measurement descriptions?
  • Results: Have the authors effectively communicated their research findings in written form? Are the results presented clearly and in a logical sequence? Consideration should be given to the appropriateness of the statistical analyses conducted. Are the statistical methods accurate? If statistical analysis is unfamiliar, please notify the editor when submitting your report.
  • Discussion/Conclusions: Are the claims made in these sections substantiated by the results and deemed reasonable? Have the authors discussed how the results align with expectations and previous research? Does the article support or challenge existing theories? Does the conclusion articulate how the research contributes to advancing scientific knowledge? Have the study’s limitations been adequately addressed and analyzed?


  • Are figures readable and of high quality? Are data adequately reported in tables? Are the data reported in figures and tables coherent with those reported in the manuscript?


  • Are references appropriate, relevant, and recent? Are there too many self-citations?


  • Is there any real, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that the authors must declare?
  • Disclosed potential COIs should include any relevant commercial or other source of funding for either author(s) or the sponsoring institution, the associated department(s), or organization(s).
  • Potential competing interests include consultancies, employment, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications and registrations, and grants or other funding.


  • When reporting experiments on animals and human subjects, the authors should indicate whether institutional and national standards for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed. Moreover, for studies on human subjects, all investigators should ensure that the planning, conduct, and reporting of human research are in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013. Please evaluate the ethics statements and data availability statements to ensure their sufficiency.
  • According to the study’s design, is informed consent from patients required? If so, can the statement be considered valid?

Please note it is mandatory to provide the authors with thorough and detailed comments in order to improve the manuscript and reach the qualitative standard of the Journal. Comments should be articulated thoughtfully to ensure that the author comprehends the necessary actions for enhancing their paper, rather than solely highlighting its deficiencies. In case reviewers suspect misconduct, they should not independently investigate, but promptly inform the editors about this suspect.

In order to streamline the feedback preparation process, a checklist that summarizes some of the abovementioned considerations is provided on Publishing Manager, the journal’s online system to manage peer-review process. This allows reviewers to easily indicate the improvements authors should address and bear in mind the evaluation parameters.

Authors are requested to provide a list of changes and a point-to-point reply letter to reviewers’ comments when revising their article. The editor may evaluate the revised version if only minor revisions were requested, or it may be sent back to the original reviewers. Subsequently, you will be prompted to confirm whether the revisions are deemed satisfactory or if more revisions are required.

Confidential Process

Submitted manuscripts are confidential property, and therefore, Editors must not share information about manuscripts, including submission and/or status in the review process, except for authors and reviewers.

Editors, authors, and reviewers are required to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process for submitted manuscripts. The peer review process is confidential and conducted anonymously; the identities of reviewers are not released.

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts. Reviewers must not publicly discuss authors’ work and must not retain the manuscript for their personal use. Reviewers must not upload the manuscript on AI software where confidentiality cannot be assured. Correspondence with the journal, referees’ reports and other confidential material must not be published, disclosed or otherwise publicized without prior written consent. It is our policy to keep their names confidential, and we do our utmost to ensure this confidentiality. However, we cannot guarantee the confidentiality of this information if legal action requires the disclosure of identity.

AI in Peer-Review

According to ICMJE guidelines, reviewers may use AI technology to aid their review after obtaining permission from the journal. However, they should be aware that using AI in manuscript processing can breach confidentiality. Manuscripts often contain sensitive information that must remain within the peer-review process. In addition, generative AI tools have significant limitations, including outdated information and the risk of generating biased or false content. Therefore, reviewers are advised not to upload manuscripts to generative AI tools.

If any part of the manuscript evaluation was supported by an AI tool, we ask peer-reviewers to transparently declare the use of such tools in their review report.



Submission to European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences is taken by the journal to mean that all the listed authors have agreed on all the contents, including the authors’ list and authors’ contribution statements. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that this agreement has been achieved and that all authors have agreed to the submission, and is also in charge of managing all communication between the journal and all co-authors before and after publication. Any changes to the author list after submission need to be approved by every author.

According to the ICMJE recommendations, authorship is based on 4 criteria:

  1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
  2. Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content;
  3. Final approval of the version to be published;
  4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

The author list should include all appropriate researchers and no others. Authorship provides credit for a researcher’s contributions to a study and carries accountability. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences encourages transparency by publishing statements on author contributions since the journal is not in a position to investigate or adjudicate authorship disputes before or after publication. Such disagreements, if they cannot be resolved amongst authors, should be brought up to the relevant institutional authority. Authors are, therefore, required to include a statement of responsibility in the manuscript that specifies the contribution of every author.

The primary affiliation for each author should be the institution where the majority of their work was done. If an author has subsequently moved, the current address may also be stated.

Corresponding Authors’ Responsibilities

The corresponding author is solely responsible for communicating with the journal and managing communication among co-authors. Before submission, the corresponding author ensures that all authors are included in the author list, its order has been agreed by all authors, and that all authors are aware that the paper was submitted. The corresponding author also ensures that the all the journal’s administrative requirements are properly reported.

At submission, the corresponding author must include written permission from the authors of the work to mention any unpublished material included in the manuscript. The corresponding author also must clearly identify at submission any material within the manuscript that has previously been published elsewhere by other authors (for example, figures) and provide written permission from those authors and/or publishers for the re-use of such material.

After acceptance, the proof is sent to the corresponding author, who shares it with all co-authors and deals with the journal on their behalf; the journal will not necessarily correct errors after publication if they result from errors that were present on a proof that was not shown to co-authors before publication. The corresponding author is responsible for the accuracy of all contents in the proof, in particular, that the names of co-authors are present and correctly spelled and that affiliations are right.

  • The name and e-mail address of the corresponding author are published in the paper.
  • Authors of published material have a responsibility to inform the journal promptly if they become aware of any part that requires correcting. Any published correction requires the consent of all authors, so time is saved if requests for corrections are accompanied by a signed agreement by all authors. In cases where one or some authors do not agree with the correction statement, the coordinating author must include correspondence to and from the dissenting author(s).

Changes to authorship

Authors should consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the first submission. Any deletion, addition or rearrangement of author names in the authorship list can be made only before the manuscript has been accepted and only if approved by the Editor-in-Chief.

To request this change, the Editor-in-Chief must receive a letter from the Corresponding Author (at specifying the reason for the change in the author list, along with a written confirmation letter from all authors that they agree with the removal, addition, or rearrangement. In the case of removal or addition of authors, this includes confirmation from the author being removed or added.

Should the corresponding author fail to fulfill the aforementioned responsibilities (e.g., not responding to critical emails, not aiding authors in journal-related requests), the journal reserves the prerogative to communicate with all authors to resolve any disputes or issues. For instance, if an author contacts the editorial office seeking modifications to the article, the corresponding author must provide consent within a reasonable timeframe. Should the corresponding author neglect to do so, the journal may exceptionally consider the request from the other author if accompanied by a letter signed by all other authors.


Data and Materials Availability

A foundational principle of publication entails enabling others to replicate and advance the claims made by authors in their published works. A requisite for publication in the European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences is that authors must promptly provide materials, data, code, and associated protocols to readers without undue restrictions. This requirement aims to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of published results.

All original research manuscripts published in our journal must include a data availability statement. In cases where no new data have been generated, such as in a review, the statement “No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data Availability is not applicable to this article” should be included.

The data availability statement must transparently outline the conditions for accessing the “minimum dataset” essential for interpreting, verifying, and extending the research in the article. The manuscript should specify who will make the data available, and any sharing restrictions must be discussed with the editor upon submission, who reserves the right to decline the study if these conditions are deemed unduly prohibitive. It is generally expected that the corresponding author (or relevant designated authors) will be responsible for the availability of data and materials unless stated otherwise.

Any restrictions on the availability of materials or information must be disclosed to the editors at the time of submission, and such restrictions must also be disclosed in the submitted manuscript. Editors may decline further consideration of the manuscript if restrictions are found to be excessively prohibitive after evaluation.

Data availability statements should include pertinent information on the following aspects:

Access to primary datasets (generated during the study) and referenced datasets (analyzed in the study) must be provided. Accession codes or other unique identifiers, if relevant and publicly available, should be provided.

– For clinical trial data, authors should adhere to ICMJE guidelines, providing details on the sharing of de-identified participant data, specific data to be shared, availability of related documents, timeline for data availability, access criteria, and mechanism for sharing.

Examples of data sharing statements can be found in Table I of the following link.

Third-party data should be made available for peer-review upon request, within the terms of a data use agreement, and in compliance with ethical and legal requirements.

  • Proprietary data: It is the authors’ responsibility to ensure and obtain an agreement with the third-party data provider, ensuring that the datasets utilized in the study will be accessible under the conditions specified in the data availability statement.
  • Administrative data (including data maintained by governments, local authorities, and international organizations): Research utilizing administrative data must ensure adherence to local regulatory and legal frameworks governing data usage.

When third-party data cannot be made available, the data availability statement should clearly state the restrictions.

Including large datasets in supplementary information is not recommended. The preferred approach is to make the data accessible through repositories.

Data retention

Authors are required to maintain the data utilized in their publication for a duration of 10 years. The journal reserves the prerogative to request access to all data in cases involving allegations of research or publication misconduct.

Data citation

Datasets deposited in repositories should be formally cited in the article reference list, including authors, title, publisher (repository name), and identifier. The accession number must also be provided in the paper for datasets.

Readers encountering refusal by authors to comply with these policies after publication should contact the Editor in Chief. In unresolved cases, the journal may involve the authors’ funding institution and/or publish a formal correction statement online, acknowledging the inability of readers to obtain necessary materials for replication.


Plagiarism or Other Types of Unethical Publication Practice

European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences disapproves of any kind of malpractice and unethical practice. Scientific misconduct in both research and non-research publications encompasses various acts, including but not limited to data fabrication, data falsification (including deceptive manipulation of images), intentional failure to disclose relationships and activities, and plagiarism.

In cases where scientific misconduct is suspected or concerns arise regarding the conduct or integrity of work presented in submitted or published papers, the journal promptly initiates an investigation in accordance with the COPE guidelines.

For submitted articles, should editors receive evidence, possibly from reviewers, regarding serious misconduct, they will share this information with the relevant institutions while also informing the authors of their actions. Where allegations of serious misconduct lack persuasive evidence, editors may seek expert guidance. If the experts ascertain no indications of misconduct, the editorial process will continue as usual.

For published articles, if any violation or unethical practice is raised after publication, The Editor in Chief can decide to start an independent investigation  with a new set a reviewers. Based on the outcome of the investigation, the Editor in Chief may decide to publish an expression of concern to inform readers that an investigation is ongoing, or to retract the article. Specific information regarding post-publication issues can be found at the following link.


About plagiarism or other types of unethical publication practice, we follow the guidelines on Good Publication Practice as reported in COPE and Council of Science Editors. These guidelines aim to ensure that articles are published in a responsible and ethical manner.

European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences does not accept submissions that have already been published, whether in full or in part, or those that have been released as preprints. Authors are required to indicate in the cover letter whether the article has been published as a preprint.

On a practical level, the journal conducts an early investigation using anti‐plagiarism software. Our Journal makes plagiarism checks using certificate software (iThenticate® and Grammarly®) on all the articles. Also, articles that are related to the suspected case of plagiarism or other unethical practices are checked for accuracy by either the reviewer’s feedback and observations or the Editor’s own observations. Our anti‐plagiarism software, however, will not identify “salami slicing”. Therefore, it is essential to examine each case individually. The Editor should assess whether the issue stems from deliberate malpractice by the author or from a lack of understanding of ethical writing requirements. This can happen for new authors or some authors where translation to English is often difficult. An example of this is where there are no words/phrases in that language that translate into English, and a developing practice that we noted is the ‘borrowing’ of words, phrases or often sentences that are considered appropriate for what authors mean to say.

The utilization of text copied from another source requires a citation from the original source. If a study’s design or the structure and language of the manuscript have been influenced by prior studies, it is essential to explicitly reference these studies.

Duplicate Publication

Material submitted to European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences must be original and not published or submitted for publication elsewhere. This rule applies to material submitted elsewhere while the European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences contribution is under consideration.

A duplicate publication is a publication that significantly overlaps with a prior publication by sharing the same hypothesis, data, discussion, and conclusions without evident and clear reference to the previous study. The journal considers this behavior unethical. If part of a contribution that an author wishes to submit to European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences has appeared or will appear elsewhere, the author must specify the details in the cover letter accompanying the submission. The journal retains the authority to reject any submitted manuscripts in the event of duplicate content without prior notification. If the journal was previously unaware of the duplicate publications, it may deem it necessary to retract the article, regardless of the author’s explanation or consent. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences follows the COPE guidelines for duplicate publication

• Publishing an abstract in earlier meeting proceedings does not prevent subsequent submission for publication. However, it is mandatory to fully disclose this issue during the submission process.

• Re-publishing a paper in a different language is acceptable, granted there is complete and conspicuous disclosure of its original source upon submission. This must be clearly and fully disclosed both in the cover letter and in the manuscript. Failure to disclose this issue at the time of submission will result in rejection.

Image Integrity and Manipulation

Images submitted with a manuscript for review should be minimally processed (for instance, to add arrows to a micrograph). Authors should retain their unprocessed data and metadata files, as editors may request them to aid in manuscript evaluation. All digitized images submitted with the final revision of the manuscript must be of high quality. Authors should disclose any technical adjustments made in a cover letter upon submission.

  • Positive and negative controls, as well as molecular size markers, should be included on each gel and blot – either in the main figure or an expanded data supplementary figure.
  • Authors should provide the editors with original data on request. Cells from multiple fields should not be juxtaposed in a single field; instead, multiple supporting fields of cells should be shown as Supplementary Information. Threshold manipulation, expansion or contraction of signal ranges and the altering of high signals should be avoided. If “pseudo-colouring” and nonlinear adjustment (for example “gamma changes”) are used, this must be disclosed. Adjustments of individual color channels are sometimes necessary on “merged” images, but this should be noted in the figure legend.

Improper technical manipulation includes obscuring, enhancing, deleting, or introducing new elements into an image. If there are concerns about the authenticity of an author’s figures, the Editor in Chief reserves the right to request the original data from the authors and to reject the manuscript in case of suspect figure manipulation. The journal employs accredited software to identify integrity concerns in figures. By submitting their manuscript to the journal, authors acknowledge that their work may undergo screening to detect any instances of image duplication or manipulation.

The journal adheres to COPE guidelines to deal with concerns of image manipulation after publication. Additional details on how the journal handles concerns raised after publication at Publication Process.

Original Images of Blots and Gels

To uphold the integrity and scientific validity of blotting techniques, i.e., Western blots and the reporting of gel data, authors are advised to upload original, uncropped, and unadjusted images as Supporting Information files when submitting their manuscript initially.

Therefore, it is strongly suggested to include either a single PDF file or a zip folder containing all original images featured in the manuscript figures and, if applicable, supplementary figures. Authors are required to label each original image to correspond with the figures in the main article.

Furthermore, all experimental samples and controls used for comparative analysis should be run on the same blot/gel image, and the practice of splicing together different images to depict results should be avoided.

Requirements for Reuse of Published Figures

If an author of a submission is re-using a figure or figures published elsewhere, or that is copyrighted, the author must provide documentation that the previous publisher or copyright holder has given permission for the figure to be re-published. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences editors consider all material in good faith that their journal has full permission to publish every part of the submitted material, including illustrations.

Citation Manipulation

Citation manipulation refers to the inclusion of references in articles that do not significantly contribute to the scholarly content but are included solely to boost citation metrics.

While citing one’s previous work can be justified for scholarly reasons such as continuity in research or to prevent accusations of self-plagiarism, editors and authors engaging in citation manipulation violate publishing best practices.

If editors, board members, reviewers, or authors add or request citations with purely self-promotional intentions, such actions contravene publication ethics and are deemed unethical.

Furthermore, irrespective of whether they are requested or not, citations should not be included under the assumption that doing so will enhance the chances of the publication being accepted. For more information check the the COPE document on citation manipulation and best practices.

European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences mandates that self-citations should not surpass 15% of the total references. It is important to note that this percentage is approximate, as the editors reserve the right to assess each case individually and determine whether additional references (self-citations) are necessary to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the research.



Human subjects

An Ethics Committee should have approved human and animal studies but in questionable matters, the Editors reserve the right to reject papers.

According with the ICMJE recommendations, all investigators should ensure that the planning conduct and reporting of human research are in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013. All authors should seek approval to conduct research from an independent local, regional or national review body (e.g., ethics committee, institutional review board) and be prepared to provide documentation if requested by editor during the review process. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the local, regional or national review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. Approval by a responsible review body does not preclude editors from forming their own judgment whether the conduct of the research was appropriate. All research on humans must have approval from the IRB (Institutional Review Board) or from equivalent local Ethics Committees. Age and gender of all subjects should be provided in the main text or in the Supplementary Material.

  • Helsinki Declaration: When reporting experiments on human subjects, all investigators should ensure that the planning conduct and reporting of human research are in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975 (as revised in 2013).

For non-interventional studies (e.g., surveys, cross-section studies, etc.), all participants must be fully informed about anonymity, how the data will be used, the reason for the research, and if there are any associated risks. As with all research involving humans, ethical approval from an appropriate ethics committee or an official IRB exemption must be obtained before conducting the study. The journal retains the authority to ask authors for documentation, such as the approval/exemption letter, survey questionnaire, and informed consent procedure/form.

Ethics Committee approval (including acceptance number and date of approval) is deemed necessary for retrospective observational studies. Should specific Ethics Institutions/Universities have different guidelines, Authors must furnish the directives outlined by the Ethics Committee of the respective institution, confirming that Ethics Committee approval is not mandated for retrospective observational studies.

If the authors have submitted the approval request to the Ethics committee and the committee determines that no approval is required, the name of the ethics committee granting this exemption should be mentioned in the ‘Institutional Review Board Statement’ or ‘Ethics Approval Statement,’ accompanied by a comprehensive explanation of the ethical approval waiver. 

Informed Consent

All research involving human participants necessitates informed consent from the participants (or their parent/legal guardian if they are under 16 years old), and this consent should be explicitly mentioned in the manuscript. Manuscripts reporting studies involving vulnerable groups, or cases where consent might not be fully informed, will be subject to the editor’s discretion.

Appropriate consents, permissions and releases must be obtained in case authors wish to include case details or other personal information or images of patients and any other individuals in their publication. This is to comply with all applicable laws and regulations concerning the privacy and/or security of personal information, including, but not limited to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679.

Patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that an identifiable patient be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should disclose to these patients whether any potential identifiable material might be available via the Internet as well as in print after publication.

The following statement should be included in each manuscript submitted to our journal:

Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Some Considerations

• Images of patients or research subjects should not be used unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and explicit permission has been given as part of the consent.
• If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, authors should provide assurances that such alterations do not distort scientific meaning.
• Formal consents are not required for the use of entirely anonymized images from which the individual cannot be identified – for example, x-rays, ultrasound images, laparoscopic images, etc.
• If consent has not been obtained, it is generally not sufficient to anonymize a photograph simply by using eye bars or blurring the face of the individual concerned.

Animal studies

Research involving animals should adhere to globally recognized standards and to the ARRIVE guidelines for documenting experiments involving live animals. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether institutional and national standards for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed, but in questionable matter, the Editors reserve the right to reject papers. This statement is mandatory for acceptance and publication of the manuscript. Authors should ensure that the experimental conditions and procedures of their research minimize any harm to animals.

Animal species/strain, sex, source (vendor name, location), age range, weight and any additional data should be indicated. Please note that we encourage the use of both male and female animals. The use of a single sex should be scientifically justified.

The project identification code, date of approval, and name of the ethics committee or institutional review board should be stated in the “Ethics Approval” statement. Research procedures must be carried out in accordance with national and institutional regulations. Statements on animal welfare should confirm that the study complied with all relevant legislation.

Cell lines

The Materials and Methods section should report the origin of any cell lines. The contamination or misidentification of cell lines negatively impacts the validity of research observations. Therefore, authors are required to describe the source of the cell line, as well as the method used for authentication, in the Materials and Methods section. References must also be given to either a published paper or to a commercial source. Confirmation of written informed consent must be provided if the line is of human origin in case de novo cell lines were used. Editors reserve the right to reject any submission that does not meet these requirements.

Clinical Trials

All clinical trials submitted to European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences for consideration of publication must be registered in accordance with the ICMJE recommendation. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) defines a clinical trial as “any research project that prospectively assigns people or a group of people to an intervention, with or without concurrent comparison or control groups, to study the relationship between a health-related intervention and a health outcome. Health-related interventions are those used to modify a biomedical or health-related outcome; examples include drugs, surgical procedures, devices, behavioural treatments, educational programs, dietary interventions, quality improvement interventions, and process-of-care changes.”

When submitting your manuscript, please include the unique trial number and the name of the registry (e.g., or ISRCTN) at the end of the abstract and in your cover letter. It is recommended to complete the registration at the time of obtaining the first participation consent. Acceptable registries should contain the minimum 24-item trial registration dataset at the time of registration and must be a primary register of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

To align with ICMJE policy, investigators registering device trials on must select the option of public posting before device approval, thus opting out of the lock box. Approval to conduct a study by an independent local, regional, or national review body (e.g., ethics committee, institutional review board) does not fulfill the ICMJE requirement for prospective clinical trial registration. For instance, registering retrospectively at the point of manuscript submission fails to fulfill ICMJE requirements.

Secondary analyses of primary clinical trials should be referenced by the trial registration number of the primary trial rather than being registered as distinct clinical trials. This information must also be disclosed in the statements and authors must cite the source by inserting the unique identifier.


Conflict of Interest (COI)


Competing interests are defined as any situation wherein multiple interests, financial involvements, or other factors exist that, through their potential influence on behavior or content or from the perception of such potential influences, could undermine the objectivity, integrity, or perceived value of a publication.

Please regard the following items as illustrative examples, though not exhaustive, of significant conflicts of interest.

  • Funding: This pertains to support for research activities, which could include salaries, equipment, supplies, reimbursement for attending conferences, and other related expenses, provided by organizations that stand to benefit financially from the outcomes of the publication.
  • Employment: This encompasses any recent, current, or expected employment by organizations that could experience financial gain or loss as a result of the publication, particularly if such employment occurred during the research project.
  • Personal Financial Interests: Financial conflicts arise when participants in the publication process receive or expect to receive monetary compensation, gifts, patents, or stocks that could influence their work on a specific publication. This involves ownership of stocks or shares in companies that may be influenced financially by the publication, receipt of consultation fees or other forms of compensation from organizations affected by the publication’s outcomes, and possession of patents or patent applications whose value could be impacted by the publication.
  • Personal relationships: Interpersonal connections with family, friends, adversaries, rivals, or associates can present conflicts of interest. For instance, a reviewer might struggle to deliver an impartial assessment of articles authored by individuals with whom they share a working history.

COI: Application to Authors

At the time of submission, European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences policy requires that authors reveal any COI, including financial interests or connections, direct or indirect, or any other situations that could raise questions of bias in either the reported work or the conclusions, implications, or opinions stated. Disclosed potential COIs should include any relevant commercial or other source of funding for either author(s), or the sponsoring institution, the associated department(s) or organization(s). When evaluating whether to declare a conflict of interest (COI), consider the following question: Are there any arrangements or situations that have not been disclosed, which may come to light after publication and have not been previously declared?

As an integral part of the online submission process, corresponding authors are required to confirm whether they or their co-authors have any conflicts of interest to declare, and to provide details of these. If the corresponding author is unable to confirm this information on behalf of all co-authors, the authors in question will then be required to submit a completed COI form to the Editorial Office. It is the corresponding author’s responsibility to ensure that all authors adhere to this policy.

If authors possess any conflicts of interest requiring declaration, they are obliged to disclose them either during the submission process or via the provided form, which must be completed and uploaded onto the Publishing Manager system upon submission.

In the event that a previously undisclosed potential competing interest for an author of a published paper comes to the attention of the editors and is subsequently confirmed with the authors, the undeclared interest will be published as an erratum in a future issue, provided it does not undermine the study’s conclusions and results, as per COPE flowchart.

About unethical publication practice, the journal follows the guidelines on Good Publication Practice as reported in COPE and Council of Science Editors.

COI in Industry Sponsored Research

Authors whose manuscripts are submitted for publication must declare all relevant sources of funding in support of the preparation of a manuscript. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences requires full disclosure of financial support as to whether it is from the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical or any other industry, government agencies, or any other source. This information should be included in the Acknowledgements section of the manuscript.

Authors are required to specify sources of funding for the study and to indicate whether or not the text was reviewed by the sponsor prior to submission, i.e., whether the study was written with full investigator access to all relevant data and whether the sponsor exerted editorial influence over the written text. This information should also be included in the cover letter. In addition to disclosure of direct financial support to the authors or their laboratory and prior sponsor-review of the paper, authors are asked to disclose all relevant consultancies within the 12 months prior to submission, since the views expressed in the contribution could be influenced by the opinions they have expressed privately as consultants. This information should be included in the Acknowledgments section of the manuscript.

COI: Application to Reviewers 

Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should disqualify themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if they believe it to be appropriate. Reviewers and external peer reviewers should disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript and they should disqualify themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts. Therefore, reviewers must state explicitly whether conflicts do or do not exist that could undermine the validity of the evaluation. Reviewers are requested to mark the appropriate checkbox when accepting the review on the online system Publishing Manager. COI for a given manuscript exists when a participant in the peer review and publication process – author, reviewer, and editor – has ties to activities that could inappropriately influence his or her judgment, regardless of whether judgment is, in fact, affected. Financial relationships with industry (for example, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family, are usually considered the most important conflicts of interest. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion. The editors must be made aware of reviewers’ COI to interpret the reviews and judge for themselves whether the reviewer should be disqualified.

COI: Application to Editors and Editorial Office

Editors responsible for final manuscript decisions should refrain from participating in editorial processes if they have relationships or engagements that could result in potential conflicts concerning the articles under consideration.

Editorial staff involved in editorial decisions must disclose any relevant relationships or activities that may influence editorial judgments and abstain from decisions where a potential conflict of interest exists. Specific policies in the “Description of Peer Review” section.

The same policies are applied for Guest Editors.

COI: Application to Publishing Policy

European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences thrives on its independence. Our strict policy is that editorial independence, decisions and content should not be compromised by commercial or financial interests, or by any specific arrangements with advertising clients or sponsors.



Authors of papers that contain taxonomy should be aware that it is possible for third parties to exploit the prior publication of nomenclature at any time between online posting of a preprint and the print publication date in a journal. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences takes no responsibility for such assertions of priority in the case of manuscripts that it publishes if the content of those manuscripts has previously appeared in the public domain as online preprints or other form of online posting.


Copyright and Licensing

For all articles published in European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, the copyright is retained by the Publisher. For more information visit Authors’ guidelines. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences applies the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license to articles. If you submit your paper for publication to our journal, you agree to have the (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license applied to your work as follows:

  1. BY) Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  2. NC) NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
  3. ND) NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

No additional restrictions – You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Notices: you do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.

Permission to Reproduce Materials

Obtaining permission to reproduce any copyrighted, published material, such as figures, schemes, or tables, is mandatory. Therefore, authors must request permission from the copyright holder to use the above-mentioned materials and provide documentation that the previous publisher or copyright holder has given appropriate permission.

Please be mindful that obtaining permission is required for:

  • Authors’ original work for which the Publisher holds the copyright (this applies to photographs and/or figures as well). Conversely, no permission is required for reconstructing an author’s own table with data previously published elsewhere, provided that proper citation of the data source is included.
  • Any utilization of unchanged or minimally altered tables, graphs, charts, or schemes from a published article.
  • Images found on the internet. They are typically protected by copyright and will necessitate permission for reuse, unless the author and/or owner has explicitly stated that the image is freely available. If credits are required to reuse an image, this information should be mentioned within the figure caption.


Preservation and Archiving

European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences is committed to ensuring the permanent availability, accessibility and preservation of scholarly research by upgrading digital file formats to comply with new technology standards. All our files and manuscripts are archived and preserved in CLOCKSS