Guide for Journal of Medical Case Reports reviewers

This guide for reviewers contains information about basic considerations that should be applied when reviewing a manuscript that has been submitted to Journal of Medical Case Reports, and about the editorial standards of the journal. Other relevant information about the journal’s aims and scope and editorial policies can be found at 'About Journal of Medical Case Reports'.

Submitted manuscripts are usually reviewed by two or more experts. Peer reviewers will be asked to recommend whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised or rejected. They should also alert the editors of any issues relating to author misconduct such as plagiarism and unethical behavior.

Journal of Medical Case Reports operates using an open peer review system. Reviewers are asked to declare any competing interests and have to agree to open peer review, which works on two levels: the authors receive the signed report and, if the manuscript is published, the same report is available to the readers. The pre-publication history (initial submission, reviews and revisions - see, for example, pre-publication history) is posted on the web with the published article.

Publication of case reports by Journal of Medical Case Reports is dependent primarily on their validity and coherence, as judged by peer reviewers and editors. The reviewers may also be asked whether the writing is comprehensible and how interesting they consider the case report to be. Submitted manuscripts will be sent to peer reviewers, unless they are out of scope or below the interest threshold of Journal of Medical Case Reports, or if the presentation or written English is of an unacceptably low standard.

Points to consider

Reviewers are asked to provide detailed, constructive comments that will help the editors make a decision on publication and the author(s) improve their manuscript. A key issue is whether the work has serious flaws that should preclude its publication, or whether there is additional data required to support the conclusions drawn. Where possible, reviewers should provide references to substantiate their comments.

Reviewers should address the points below and indicate whether they consider any required revisions to be 'major compulsory revisions', 'minor essential revisions' or 'discretionary revisions'.

Has the case been reported coherently?
Is the case report authentic?
Is the case report ethical?
Is there any missing information that you think must be added before publication?
Is this case worth reporting?
Is the case report persuasive?
Does the case report have explanatory value?
Does the case report have diagnostic value?
Will the case report make a difference to clinical practice?
Is the anonymity of the patient protected?
Are there any ethical or competing interests issues you would like to raise?<
Has consent been obtained from the appropriate person? If the individual described in the case report is a minor, or unable to provide consent, then consent must be sought from their parents or legal guardians. If the person described in the case report has died, then consent for publication must be sought from their next of kin. Whilst we do not expect reviewers to delve into authors' competing interests, if you are aware of any issues that you do not think have been adequately addressed, please inform the Editorial office./li>
Reviewers are reminded of the importance of timely reviews.
If reviewers encounter or foresee any problems meeting the deadline for a report, they should contact jmcreditorial@biomedcentral.com.
Confidentiality.
Any manuscript sent for peer review is a confidential document and should remain so until it is formally published.

Portability of peer review

To support efficient and thorough peer review, we aim to reduce the number of times a manuscript is reviewed, thereby speeding up the publication process and reducing the burden on peer reviewers. Therefore, please note that, if a manuscript is not accepted for publication in Journal of Medical Case Reports and the authors choose to submit a revised version to another BioMed Central published journal, we will pass the reviews on to the other journal's editors at the authors’ request. We will reveal the reviewers' names to the handling editor for editorial purposes unless reviewers let us know when they return their report that they do not wish us to share their report with another BioMed Central published journal and/or that they do not wish to participate further in the peer review of this manuscript.

Editorial standards

Reviewers are asked to bear the editorial standards of Journal of Medical Case Reports in mind and alert the editors if authors have not fully adhered to them. Journal of Medical Case Reports is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Standards of reporting

Journal of Medical Case Reports supports initiatives aimed at improving the reporting of research. Reviewers can find more details on this at Standards of Reporting in 'About Journal of Medical Case Reports'.