Peer Review Process

The Journal of Mediterranean, European and African Sciences (JMEAS) applies a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, and integrity of all published content.

Peer review is a fundamental component of the journal’s editorial workflow and is conducted in accordance with internationally recognized standards and ethical guidelines.

1. Review Model

JMEAS adopts a single-blind peer-review model, in which:

  • the identity of the author(s) is known to the reviewers;

  • the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the author(s).

Reviewer anonymity is respected throughout the review process unless explicit consent is provided.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editorial Office to verify:

  • compliance with the journal’s aims and scope;

  • adherence to author guidelines and ethical policies;

  • originality and overall scientific soundness.

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected at this stage without external peer review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts passing the initial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • subject-matter expertise;

  • absence of conflicts of interest;

  • professional and academic qualifications.

Author-suggested reviewers may be considered, but the final selection rests with the Editors.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  • relevance to the journal’s scope;

  • originality and contribution to knowledge;

  • methodological rigor and validity;

  • clarity and coherence of presentation;

  • appropriateness of references;

  • ethical compliance.

5. Reviewer Reports

Reviewers provide structured, constructive, and confidential reports, including:

  • specific comments for the authors;

  • confidential remarks for the Editors, where necessary;

  • a clear recommendation regarding the manuscript.

6. Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewer reports and editorial evaluation, the Editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision

  • Accept with minor revisions

  • Reconsider after major revisions

  • Reject

The final decision rests with the Editor handling the manuscript.

7. Revisions

When revisions are requested, authors must:

  • address reviewer comments in a point-by-point manner;

  • submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe;

  • clearly indicate changes made to the manuscript.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

8. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and review materials are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers and editors must not share or use unpublished material for personal or professional advantage.

9. Ethical Oversight

The peer-review process is conducted in line with the journal’s Ethics and Policies, Competing Interests Policy, and Editorial Policies.

Any concerns regarding ethical misconduct are investigated in accordance with established procedures.

10. Acknowledgement of Reviewers

The journal recognizes the essential contribution of reviewers to the academic community.
Review activities may be acknowledged periodically in an aggregated and non-identifying manner.

11. Policy Review

This Peer-Review-Process is reviewed periodically to ensure alignment with evolving best practices and ethical standards in scholarly publishing.

Any updates will be published on the journal website and will take effect upon publication.