Peer Review

Peer Review Process

All research articles submitted to Archiv EuroMedica undergo editorial screening and peer review.

The initial screening is performed by an editor to assess the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope, basic scientific quality, ethical compliance and adherence to the journal’s author guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements may be returned to the authors before peer review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. The journal uses peer review to assess the scientific validity, originality, methodological quality, clarity of presentation and relevance of the submitted manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, confidential and constructive assessments. They must declare any conflicts of interest and should decline the review if they do not have sufficient expertise or if a conflict of interest may affect their judgement.

A reviewer checklist is provided to support a structured and transparent review process.

Reviewer checklist

Abstract, title and references

  • Is the title informative and relevant?
  • Is the aim clear?
  • Is it clear from the abstract what the study found and how they did it?
  • Are the references:
  • Relevant?
  • Recent?
  • Cited correctly?
  • Are appropriate key studies included?

Introduction and background

  • Is it clear what is already known about this topic?
  • Is the research question clearly outlined?
  • Is the research question justified given what is already known about the topic?

Methods

  • Is the process of subject selection clear?
  • Are the variables defined and measured appropriately?
  • Are the study methods valid and reliable?
  • Is there enough detail in order to replicate the study?

Results

  • Is the data presented in an appropriate way?
  • Are tables and figures relevant and clearly presented?
  • Appropriate units, rounding, and number of decimals?
  • Are titles, columns, and rows labelled correctly and clearly?
  • Categories grouped appropriately?
  • Does the text in the results add to the data or is it repetitive?
  • Is it clear which results are statistically significant?
  • Are you clear about what is a practically meaningful result?

Discussion and Conclusions

  • Are the results discussed from multiple perspectives and placed into context without being overinterpreted?
  • Do the conclusions answer the aims of the study?
  • Are the conclusions supported by references or results?
  • Are the limitations clearly acknowledged and appropriately discussed?

Reviewer Agreement Letter

Download Reviewer Agreement Letter

Reviewer Recognition

The editors gratefully acknowledge the valuable work of the following reviewers who have supported the journal through their expertise, time and careful assessments.

  • Prof. Alexander Akinchits, Volgograd State Medical University, Volgograd, Russia
  • Prof. Ghamdan Al-Harazi, Department of Orthodontics, Pedodontic, and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Sana'a University, Yemen
  • Prof. David Areshidze, Laboratory of Experimental Biology and Biotechnology Moscow State Regional University, Moscow, Russia
  • Prof. Eduard Batkaev, Department of Dermatology, Faculty of Postgraduate Education, RUDN University, Moscow, Russia
  • Dr. Alexander Fedonnikov, MD, Phd, Research Institute of Traumatology, Orthopedics and Neurosurgery, Saratov State Medical University, Saratov, Russia
  • Prof. Carlos K B Ferrari, PhD, Institute of Biological and Health Sciences, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Barra do Garças, Brasil
  • Dr. Olga Gorchakova, MD, PhD, Research Institute of Clinical and Experimental Lymphology, Branch of IC&G SB RAS, Novosibirsk, Russia
  • Prof. Vladimir Gorchakov, Research Institute of Clinical and Experimental Lymphology, Branch of IC&G SB RAS, Novosibirsk, Russia
  • Prof. Vladimir Izranov, Department of Fundamental Medicine, Kant Baltic Federal University, Kaliningrad, Russia
  • Dr. Elvira Ivanova, MD, PhD, Perm Regional Center for AIDS and Infectious Diseases, Perm, Russia
  • Prof. Igor Kastyro, Faculty of Medicine, Moscow S.U. Witte University, Moscow, Russia
  • Prof. Irina Khodzhilo, Dnipropetrovsk Regional Institute for Public Administration, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine
  • Prof. Valentin Kozlov, RUDN Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia
  • Prof. Yury Krasnikov, Department of Fundamental Medicine, Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia
  • Dr. Ilya Krestyashin, MD, PhD, Russian National Research Medical University named after N. Pirogov
  • Dr. Nina Kulichenko, MD, PhD, Department of Urology, RUDN University, Moscow, Russia
  • Prof. Vladimir Kutukov, Department of Oncology with Radiation Diagnosis and Therapy, Astrakhan Medical University, Astrakhan, Russia
  • Prof. Vladimir Murga, Tver State Medical University, Tver, Russia
  • Prof. Lubov Naumova, Department of Cell Biology, Cytology and Hystology Astrakhan Medical University, Astrakhan, Russia
  • Dr. Olga Pitirimova MD, PhD, Bakulev Scientific Center of Cardiovascular Surgery, Moscow, Russia
  • Dr. Jörg Pötzsch, Satina Medical UG, Berlin, Germany
  • Prof. Vladimir Protsenko, Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics of the NAMS Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine
  • Prof. Antonio Sandu, Department of Public Administration and Law, Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania
  • Dr. Tatiana Shishkina, MD, PhD, Department of Cell Biology, Cytology and Histology, Astrakhan Medical University, Astrakhan, Russia
  • Prof. Galina Reva, Department of Fundamental Medicine, Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia
  • Dr. Ivan Reva PhD, IMERC, Niigata, Japan
  • Prof. Tatiana Tsekhmistrenko, Institute of Developmental Physiology, RUDN University, Moscow, Russia
  • Dr. Nelli Vargina, virologist, Saint Petersburg
  • Dr. Mayank Vats, Rashid Hospital, Dubai Health Authority, Dubai, UAE
  • Dr. Dmitriy Zlotver, DRV BSH Hanover, Germany
  • Dr. Dmitry Zubovskiy, Vincent Krankenhaus, Hanover, Germany