The Intercontinental Journal of Emergency Medicine aims to publish issues related to all fields of emergency medicine and all specialties involved in the management of emergencies in the hospital and prehospital environment of the highest scientific and clinical value at an international level and accepts articles on these topics.
Intercontinental Journal of Emergency Medicine (ICJEM) is committed to maintaining a fair, independent, confidential, and scientifically rigorous peer-review process.
All manuscripts submitted to ICJEM must be original, approved by all listed authors, and not simultaneously under consideration by another journal.
Initial Editorial Screening
All submissions undergo an initial technical and editorial screening before external peer review.
During this stage, manuscripts are evaluated for:
Submitted manuscripts may also be screened using plagiarism-detection software such as iThenticate.
Manuscripts that do not meet the Journal’s basic requirements or fall outside its scope may be rejected without external peer review.
Passing the initial screening does not guarantee that a manuscript will be sent for external review.
Double-Blind Peer Review
ICJEM uses a double-blind peer-review model for research manuscripts.
Under this model:
Authors must therefore ensure that the blinded manuscript does not contain names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgments, or other information that could directly identify the authors.
The Journal will make reasonable efforts to preserve anonymity throughout the review process; however, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly in highly specialized fields or when study details have previously been made publicly available.
Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts selected for external review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant scientific or clinical expertise.
Reviewers may be selected from national or international institutions.
Reviewer selection is based on factors including:
Additional reviewers, statistical reviewers, methodological experts, or other specialist reviewers may be invited when considered necessary by the Editor.
Author-Suggested and Opposed Reviewers
Authors may be permitted to suggest potential reviewers during submission.
Suggested reviewers must be appropriately qualified and should not have relationships with the authors that could reasonably be perceived as compromising the independence of the review.
The Journal is under no obligation to invite author-suggested reviewers.
Authors may also identify individuals whom they prefer not to review their manuscript and may provide a brief justification for the request.
The final selection of reviewers remains entirely at the discretion of the Editor.
Reviewer Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, academic, institutional, personal, or other relationship that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, their evaluation of a manuscript.
Potential conflicts may include, but are not limited to:
Reviewers who believe that a conflict may impair their objectivity must decline the review or promptly inform the Editor.
The existence of a relationship does not automatically constitute misconduct; however, transparency and appropriate recusal are required where impartiality may be affected.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful assessments.
Reviewers should evaluate, where applicable:
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately cited when this is important to the scientific evaluation of the manuscript.
If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, inappropriate image manipulation, unethical research practices, or other potential misconduct, the reviewer should confidentially notify the Editor.
Reviewer Confidentiality
Submitted manuscripts and all related materials are confidential and privileged communications.
Reviewers must not:
Reviewers who wish to involve a trainee, colleague, or other individual in the review must obtain prior permission from the Journal and ensure that all individuals involved comply with the same confidentiality requirements.
The use of artificial intelligence or AI-assisted technologies during peer review must comply with ICJEM's Artificial Intelligence and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy. Confidential manuscript material must not be uploaded into third-party AI systems when confidentiality and data security cannot be assured.
Reviewer Competence and Timeliness
A reviewer who believes that they do not have sufficient expertise to evaluate a manuscript should decline the invitation.
Reviewers should also decline or notify the Editor when they are unable to complete the review within the requested timeframe.
Peer-review reports should be submitted within the deadline specified by the Journal whenever possible.
Editorial Evaluation and Decision
Reviewer recommendations are advisory.
The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor evaluates the reviewers' reports together with the manuscript and is responsible for the editorial decision.
Possible decisions may include:
The Editor is not required to follow the majority recommendation of reviewers and may seek additional review when reviewer opinions are substantially divergent or when further expertise is required.
Editorial decisions are based on scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, relevance to the Journal's scope, and contribution to the literature.
Revised Manuscripts
When revision is requested, authors should submit:
Authors are not required to accept every reviewer recommendation; however, any recommendation that is not followed should be addressed with a clear scientific justification.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated directly by the Editor, depending on the extent of the revisions and the nature of the reviewer comments.
Editorial Board Members and Editors as Authors
Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Editorial Board members, Journal staff, or individuals directly involved in the Journal’s editorial decision-making are subject to the same scientific and ethical standards as other submissions.
Such manuscripts are handled independently.
Any editor or editorial board member who is an author of, has contributed to, or has a conflict of interest regarding a submitted manuscript must have no access to the editorial decision-making process for that manuscript.
An independent editor without a relevant conflict of interest will oversee the peer-review process and make or coordinate the final editorial decision.
The identity and role of the submitting editor or board member must not influence reviewer selection or editorial evaluation.
Editorial Conflicts of Interest
Editors must disclose relationships or activities that may affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality.
Editors with a relevant conflict of interest must recuse themselves from handling the manuscript.
The manuscript will then be assigned to another qualified editor who has no relevant conflict.
Reviewer Misconduct
Allegations of reviewer misconduct, including misuse of confidential information, plagiarism, undisclosed conflicts of interest, inappropriate appropriation of ideas or data, manipulation of the peer-review process, or serious breaches of confidentiality, will be investigated in accordance with ICJEM's publication ethics procedures.
Where misconduct is confirmed, appropriate action may include:
Appeals of Editorial Decisions
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a substantial scientific, methodological, ethical, or procedural issue has been overlooked or misunderstood.
An appeal must provide a clear and evidence-based explanation of the grounds for reconsideration.
Appeals based solely on disagreement with the editorial decision, without substantive scientific or procedural justification, may not be considered.
Appeals are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or, where a conflict of interest exists, by another independent senior editor.
The Journal may seek additional expert review when necessary.
The outcome of the appeal represents the Journal's final decision unless exceptional circumstances justify further review.
Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are based on the scientific merit, methodological quality, ethical integrity, relevance, and suitability of the manuscript.
Commercial considerations, advertising relationships, sponsorship, institutional relationships, or the identity, nationality, gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs, political views, or other personal characteristics of the authors must not influence editorial decisions.
The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for the editorial content of ICJEM.