Emperor Journal of Allied Medical Research

Emperor Journal of Allied Medical Research (EJAMR) can be presented as a scholarly journal providing a platform for research across allied health sciences, clinical and biomedical disciplines, healthcare practice, public health, and related interdisciplinary fields.

Our Vision

To advance allied medical research through trusted, ethical, and accessible scholarly publishing.

Our Mission

Our mission is to provide a rigorous, ethical, and accessible platform for high-quality allied medical research, supporting researchers in sharing evidence, advancing interdisciplinary knowledge, and contributing to improved healthcare practice and outcomes.

Focus

Emperor Journal of Allied Medical Research focuses on high-quality, evidence-based research across allied health sciences, clinical practice, healthcare technology, rehabilitation, public health, and interdisciplinary medical research.

The journal welcomes original research, systematic reviews, clinical and applied studies, methodological contributions, and emerging perspectives that advance healthcare knowledge, professional practice, innovation, and patient outcomes.

Scope

Emperor Journal of Allied Medical Research welcomes original, rigorous, and ethically conducted research across the broad field of allied medical and health sciences. The journal provides a multidisciplinary platform for research that contributes to healthcare knowledge, professional practice, innovation, and improved health outcomes. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to:

• Allied Health Sciences
• Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation
• Occupational Therapy
• Medical Laboratory Sciences
• Radiography and Medical Imaging
• Medical and Health Technology
• Nursing and Patient Care
• Public Health and Community Health
• Nutrition and Dietetics
• Health Promotion and Disease Prevention
• Clinical and Biomedical Research
• Healthcare Management and Administration
• Digital Health and Health Informatics
• Health Technology and Innovation
• Epidemiology and Health Services Research
• Mental Health and Behavioural Health
• Environmental and Occupational Health
• Interdisciplinary and Translational Health Research

The journal considers original research articles, systematic and narrative reviews, short communications, case-based research where appropriate, methodological studies, and other scholarly contributions that meet its standards of research integrity, ethical conduct, methodological rigour, and scientific relevance.

Aims & Objectives

Emperor Journal of Allied Medical Research aims to provide a rigorous, ethical, and multidisciplinary platform for the dissemination of high-quality research in allied medical and health sciences.

The journal seeks to:

1. Promote rigorous research that advances knowledge across allied medical and health sciences.
2. Support interdisciplinary scholarship connecting clinical, scientific, technological, and public health perspectives.
3. Disseminate evidence-based findings that can inform healthcare practice, education, policy, and research.
4. Encourage innovation in healthcare technologies, methods, services, and professional practice.
5. Maintain high standards of research integrity through transparent editorial and peer-review practices.
6. Provide an international platform for researchers to communicate emerging evidence and perspectives.
7. Foster scholarly collaboration among researchers, healthcare professionals, educators, institutions, and other stakeholders.
8. Encourage research addressing emerging health challenges and opportunities for improving health and healthcare outcomes.

Author Guidelines

Emperor Journal of Allied Medical Research (EJAMR) welcomes original scholarly contributions that fall within the journal’s scope. Authors are responsible for ensuring that submissions are original, ethically conducted, scientifically sound, and prepared in accordance with these guidelines.

1. Scope and Relevance

Before submission, authors should confirm that the manuscript addresses a subject within the journal’s publication scope and makes a meaningful contribution to allied medical and health sciences.

2. Originality and Exclusive Submission

Manuscripts must be original and must not have been published previously or be under consideration by another journal. Authors should disclose any substantial overlap with previously published or submitted work.

3. Manuscript Preparation

Manuscripts should be written in clear, concise academic English and prepared in a consistent format. Authors should include, as applicable:

Title

Author names and institutional affiliations

Corresponding author details

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and Methods / Methodology

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

References

Tables and figures

Relevant declarations

The structure may vary according to the article type.

4. Abstract and Keywords

The abstract should accurately summarise the research objective, methodology, principal findings, and conclusions. Authors should provide appropriate keywords that facilitate indexing and discovery.

5. Ethical Requirements

Research involving human participants, animals, identifiable personal information, or other ethically sensitive material must comply with applicable ethical standards and institutional requirements.

Where applicable, manuscripts should state:

Ethics committee or institutional review approval

Informed consent

Participant consent for publication

Animal welfare compliance

Relevant ethical or regulatory permissions

6. Authorship

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made substantial contributions to the research and manuscript and who accept responsibility for the work. All listed authors should approve the final manuscript and agree to its submission.

7. Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose any financial, professional, personal, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research or its interpretation.

8. Funding

Authors should disclose all sources of financial or institutional support. If the research received no external funding, authors should provide an appropriate declaration.

9. Data and Materials

Authors should provide appropriate information regarding data availability, research materials, protocols, or other supporting resources, subject to ethical, legal, confidentiality, and institutional restrictions.

10. Figures and Tables

Figures and tables should be clear, appropriately numbered, and referenced in the manuscript. Authors must ensure that they have the necessary rights or permissions to reproduce third-party material.

11. References

References must be accurate, complete, and consistently formatted according to the journal’s prescribed reference style. Authors should verify that all cited sources are relevant and traceable.

12. Copyright and Permissions

Authors must ensure that submitted material does not infringe copyright or other third-party rights. Obtain permission where required for previously published, copyrighted, identifiable, or otherwise restricted material.

13. Declaration of Generative AI Use

Where generative artificial intelligence or AI-assisted tools have been used in preparing the manuscript, authors should disclose such use in accordance with the journal’s policy. AI tools must not be listed as authors, and authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and appropriate attribution of the submitted work.

14. Peer Review

Submissions undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine scope, completeness, ethical compliance, and suitability for further consideration. Manuscripts that proceed beyond this stage may undergo peer review in accordance with the journal’s editorial policy.

15. Revisions

Authors may be asked to revise their manuscripts in response to editorial or reviewer comments. Revised submissions should include a clear response to the comments and identify substantive changes made to the manuscript.

16. Publication Decisions

Editorial decisions are based on factors including scope, originality, methodological rigour, ethical compliance, clarity, scholarly significance, and the quality of the peer-review process. Submission does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

17. Submission Checklist

Before submission, authors should confirm that:

The manuscript fits the journal’s scope.

All authors have approved the final version.

The manuscript is original and not under consideration elsewhere.

Ethical approval and consent requirements have been addressed where applicable.

Funding and conflicts of interest have been declared.

References, tables, and figures have been checked.

Required permissions have been obtained.

All required declarations are included.

The manuscript follows the journal’s formatting requirements.

Editorial Board Member Guidelines

Editorial Board Members of the Emperor Journal of Allied Medical Research (EJAMR) contribute to the journal’s academic quality, editorial integrity, and development. Board membership carries responsibilities relating to scholarly judgment, confidentiality, ethical conduct, and constructive engagement with authors and reviewers.

1. Academic and Professional Expertise

Editorial Board Members should have appropriate academic qualifications, research experience, subject expertise, and scholarly publications relevant to the journal’s scope. Members should maintain an active interest in research and developments within their area of expertise.

2. Editorial Responsibilities

Board Members may be invited to:

Assess manuscripts for scope and editorial suitability.

Recommend appropriate peer reviewers.

Provide independent scholarly advice on manuscripts.

Evaluate reviewer reports and contribute to editorial decisions when requested.

Advise the Editor-in-Chief on emerging research areas and journal development.

Support the journal in maintaining appropriate research and publication standards.

Contribute editorials, reviews, special issues, or other scholarly content where appropriate.

3. Independence and Impartiality

Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit, methodological quality, relevance, originality, and ethical standards. Board Members should not allow personal, institutional, financial, professional, or other interests to influence their editorial judgment.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Board Members must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest relating to a manuscript or author. Where a conflict exists, the member should withdraw from the relevant editorial assessment or decision-making process.

5. Confidentiality

Manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished research must be treated as confidential information. Board Members must not disclose or use unpublished information for personal, professional, or commercial advantage.

6. Peer-Review Integrity

Board Members involved in peer review should:

Select reviewers with appropriate expertise.

Avoid reviewers with identifiable conflicts of interest.

Protect reviewer confidentiality where applicable.

Encourage reviews that are objective, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive.

Avoid unnecessary delays in the review process.

7. Ethical and Publication Standards

Board Members should support established principles of research integrity and responsible publishing, including appropriate handling of plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, authorship disputes, conflicts of interest, and other publication-ethics concerns.

8. Editorial Conduct

Board Members are expected to communicate professionally and respectfully with authors, reviewers, editors, and other stakeholders. Editorial correspondence should be clear, impartial, and appropriately documented.

9. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Board Members should not upload confidential manuscripts, reviewer reports, or other unpublished editorial materials to external generative AI systems unless expressly permitted under the journal’s approved policy and appropriate confidentiality safeguards are in place.

AI-assisted tools must not replace the independent scholarly judgment and accountability of an Editorial Board Member.

10. Editorial Board Participation

Members are expected to maintain reasonable engagement with the journal and respond to editorial requests within agreed timeframes. Where a member is unable to undertake an assigned responsibility, they should inform the relevant editor promptly.

11. Transparency

Editorial Board Members should provide accurate professional and institutional information for their journal profile. Any significant change in affiliation, professional role, or relevant conflict of interest should be communicated to the Editorial Office.

12. Appointment and Review

Editorial Board appointments are made by the appropriate editorial authority based on expertise, scholarly contribution, professional standing, and alignment with the journal’s scope. Appointments may be periodically reviewed and renewed according to the journal’s policies.

13. Resignation or Removal

An Editorial Board Member may resign by providing written notice to the Editorial Office. The journal may also end an appointment where there is sustained non-participation, serious breach of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest, research or publication misconduct, or other conduct inconsistent with the responsibilities of editorial service.

14. Commitment to Editorial Integrity

By accepting an Editorial Board appointment, members acknowledge their responsibility to uphold editorial independence, confidentiality, fairness, research integrity, and responsible scholarly communication.

The Editorial Board collectively supports the journal’s commitment to maintaining a credible, transparent, and academically rigorous publication process.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and scholarly value of the Emperor Journal of Allied Medical Research (EJAMR). Reviews should be objective, constructive, confidential, and based on the academic and methodological merits of the manuscript.

1. Accepting a Review

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and whether they can complete the review within the requested timeframe.

Reviewers should decline the invitation if they have a conflict of interest, insufficient subject expertise, or another circumstance that could affect—or reasonably appear to affect—their impartiality.

2. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers must not:

Share the manuscript or review materials with unauthorised individuals.

Discuss unpublished findings with others.

Use unpublished information for personal, professional, or commercial purposes.

Upload confidential manuscript content to external AI or other third-party systems unless expressly permitted by the journal.

3. Objective and Constructive Assessment

Reviews should be fair, evidence-based, respectful, and specific. Reviewers should focus on the manuscript rather than the authors and provide clear recommendations for improvement.

Personal criticism, discriminatory language, or unsupported allegations should be avoided.

4. Key Areas for Assessment

Reviewers should consider, where applicable:

1. Relevance and scope
2. Originality
3. Research question
4. Methodology
5. Data and analysis
6. Results
7. Discussion and conclusions
8. Ethical compliance
9. References
10. Presentation

5. Research Ethics and Integrity

Reviewers should alert the editor to credible concerns regarding possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, unethical research practices, or other publication-integrity issues. Such concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editor rather than asserted as established misconduct without appropriate evidence.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. Examples may include recent collaboration with an author, personal or professional relationships, direct competition, financial interests, or involvement in closely related work.

When a conflict could compromise impartiality, the reviewer should decline the review.

7. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers remain responsible for their own scholarly assessment. Unless specifically authorised by the journal, reviewers should not use generative AI tools to process or evaluate confidential manuscripts, as doing so may compromise confidentiality and intellectual property.

8. Reviewer Recommendations

The reviewer should provide a clear recommendation to the editor, such as:

Accept

Minor revision

Major revision

Reject

The recommendation should be supported by the substantive comments provided in the review.

9. Comments to Authors and Editors

Comments to authors should identify the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses and provide practical suggestions for improvement.

Any confidential comments intended solely for the editor should be clearly separated from comments intended for the authors.

10. Timeliness

Reviewers should complete reviews within the timeframe specified in the invitation. If additional time is required, the reviewer should contact the Editorial Office promptly. If the review cannot be completed within a reasonable period, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

11. Final Responsibility

Peer review provides expert advice to the editorial team; final publication decisions remain the responsibility of the journal’s designated editor.