Journal Policies, COI and Licensing

Data and Materials Availability

Publication Ethics and Recommendations

Unethical Publication Practice

Image Integrity and Manipulation

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.

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.

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.

Self-Archiving Policy

European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences allows authors to archive specific versions of their manuscripts in institutional, disciplinary, or personal repositories under the conditions described below.

Published Version (Version of Record)
Authors may archive only the Version of Record (the final, published PDF available on the journal website) in any institutional, disciplinary, or personal repository.

The archived file must include:

the full and correct citation of the article; and
a link to the Version of Record on the European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences website.

No other version of the manuscript may be shared or posted publicly by the authors; reuse of the Version of Record by third parties is governed by the applicable Creative Commons license.

Copyright and Licensing

For all articles published in European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, copyright is retained by the Publisher. Starting with articles published from January 2025 onward, the Publisher releases all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

By submitting a manuscript to the journal, Authors agree that, upon acceptance for publication, the Publisher will apply the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license to the Version of Record of the work.

Under the terms of the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license:

BY) Attribution — Appropriate credit must be given, a link to the license provided, and indication made if changes were made. This may be done in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests endorsement by the Publisher.
NC) NonCommercial — The material may not be used for commercial purposes.
SA) ShareAlike — If the material is remixed, transformed, or built upon, the resulting contributions must be distributed under the same license as the original.

No additional restrictions — No legal terms or technological measures may be applied that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Notices — Compliance with the license is not required for elements of the material in the public domain or where use is permitted by applicable exceptions or limitations.

No warranties are given — The license may not grant all permissions necessary for specific uses; other rights, such as privacy, publicity, or moral rights, may apply.

Articles published before January 2025 remain licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

Description of Peer-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 submissions first undergo a preliminary quality check conducted by the editorial team. This includes verification of compliance with the journal’s ethical and technical standards through plagiarism detection and image integrity screening using specialized software. 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.

All contributions are then handled by the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who, together with the Associate Editors (AE), makes 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 also be taken after informal consultation with specialists in the relevant field.

After this step, the EiC or an AE assigns the manuscript to two or three reviewers, selected among Editorial Board members or qualified external experts in the field. To be selected, reviewers must not have co-authored papers with any of the manuscript’s authors within the past five years, must belong to different institutions, and must have no personal or financial conflict of interest with the authors or the content of the paper. Reviewer selection is a critical part of the publication process and is based on multiple factors, including expertise, reputation, and specific recommendations. Reviewers are reminded that all materials they receive are confidential and must be treated accordingly. Authors may suggest potential independent reviewers, but the journal will only consider these suggestions after verifying the reviewers’ identity, expertise, and absence of any conflicts of interest.

Following the reviewers’ reports, the EiC or an AE makes a preliminary editorial decision on the submitted article, taking into account the strength and relevance of the reviewers’ comments. The editorial decision may include acceptance, a request for revision (minor or major) with specific guidance for improvement, or rejection. Revised manuscripts are re-assessed, whenever possible, by either the same reviewers or the Associate Editor who handled the initial evaluation, to ensure that all substantive comments and suggestions have been appropriately addressed. In some cases, rejection may be accompanied by constructive feedback to help authors revise and potentially resubmit their work upon invitation. Manuscripts may be rejected outright for reasons, such as limited relevance to the field, lack of originality, or significant technical or interpretational flaws. The EiC retains the final authority on acceptance, revision, or rejection.

The journal may seek additional expert opinions, particularly in cases where reviewers’ evaluations diverge or when authors contest potential misunderstandings. The journal takes reviewers’ criticisms seriously and makes every effort to ensure that valid scientific criticisms are properly addressed before a final editorial decision is made, while also monitoring peer-review timelines to ensure an efficient, transparent, and fair evaluation process.

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 submission.europeanreview@verduci.it 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.

Timing

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 conflicts of interest. 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 designated 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.

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:

TOPIC AND ORIGINALITY

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?

OVERALL ORGANIZATION, CLARITY AND METHODOLOGY

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?

FIGURES AND TABLES

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?

REFERENCES

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

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

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.

ETHICS STATEMENT AND INFORMED CONSENT

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 Declaration of Helsinki 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. 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 and Editors are advised not to upload manuscripts to generative AI tools where confidentiality cannot be assured. 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, European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences asks reviewers and Editors to limit the use of AI tools only for language editing. Additionally, we ask reviewers to transparently declare the use of such tools in their review report.

Authorship

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.

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

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content;
Final approval of the version to be published;
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. If the authors cannot resolve such disagreements among themselves, they should refer the matter to the appropriate institutional authority. Authors are, therefore, required to include a statement of responsibility in the manuscript that specifies the contribution of every author. Contributions to the work that do not meet authorship criteria, such as study support, general mentoring, data collection, study coordination, and similar activities, can be recognized in the Acknowledgements.

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.

Authors are encouraged to complete the following form and upload it to the Publishing Manager at submission.

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 corresponding author must include correspondence to and from the dissenting author(s).
The corresponding author should also act as correspondence for future concerns (if any) regarding the integrity of the research.

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.

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 submission.europeanreview@verduci.it) specifying the reason for the change in the author list, along with a written confirmation letter from all authors stating 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.

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. 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.

Conflict of Interest (COI)

Definition

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, the journal will start an investigation as per COPE flowchart, reassessing the article to evaluate whether to apply for a retraction or publish an erratum.

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 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.

Ethics Approval

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 Declaration of Helsinki 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 Declaration of Helsinki, 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 sex of all subjects should be provided in the main text or in the Supplementary Material.

Declaration of Helsinki: 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-sectional 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.

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. Written informed consent must be obtained and confirmed when de novo cell lines of human origin are 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., ClinicalTrials.gov 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 ClinicalTrials.gov 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.

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.

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 concerns and retraction policies can be found at the following link.

Plagiarism

European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences does not accept submissions that have already been published, whether in full or in part.

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 the Editors. Our anti‐plagiarism software, however, will not identify “salami slicing”. Therefore, it is essential that the Editor examine each case individually and 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.

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 and Post-publication concerns.

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.

Advertising Policy

European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences maintains full editorial independence. Editorial decisions and content are made solely on scientific merit and are not influenced by advertising, sponsorship, or any commercial or financial interests.