Peer Review Policy

Ensuring Rigorous and Transparent Peer Review

The Archives of Case Reports (ACR) follows a rigorous peer review process to maintain the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic excellence. Every manuscript submitted to ACR undergoes a thorough evaluation to ensure clarity, accuracy, originality, and relevance to the field of case-based medical research.

Our commitment to peer review helps authors refine their work while ensuring that only the most credible and significant case reports, case series, and clinical discussions are published.

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts undergo a **double-blind peer review** to ensure objectivity. The review process consists of the following steps:

  1. Editorial Screening: The editorial board assesses the manuscript for scope, format, originality, and adherence to ethical guidelines.
  2. Reviewer Selection: The manuscript is assigned to **two or more independent reviewers** with expertise in the relevant medical specialty.
  3. Double-Blind Review: Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to ensure unbiased evaluation.
  4. Reviewer Comments: Reviewers provide feedback on the clinical significance, methodology, clarity, and ethical compliance of the case report.
  5. Revision and Resubmission: Authors respond to reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript, if necessary.
  6. Final Decision: The editor makes a final decision based on reviewer recommendations and manuscript quality.
  7. Publication: Accepted manuscripts are formatted and published with a **DOI for permanent referencing**.

Evaluation Criteria

Manuscripts are reviewed based on:

  • Clinical Relevance: Importance and applicability of the case.
  • Originality: Novel insights or unique presentation of a medical condition.
  • Scientific Accuracy: Use of valid diagnostic and treatment approaches.
  • Ethical Adherence: Compliance with research and patient confidentiality guidelines.
  • Clarity and Structure: Logical presentation, language quality, and completeness.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Our peer reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide unbiased, constructive feedback.
  • Identify strengths, weaknesses, and potential ethical concerns.
  • Ensure confidentiality of the review process.
  • Disclose any conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in clinical case studies and medical diagnostics.

Editorial Decision Outcomes

The editorial team may decide the following based on reviewer feedback:

  • Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication.
  • Minor Revision: Small improvements are required.
  • Major Revision: Substantial revisions are necessary.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards.

Authors receive detailed feedback with the final decision.

Appeals and Disputes

Authors who wish to appeal a rejection must submit a formal request detailing their concerns. The editorial board will conduct an independent review before making a final decision.

Ethical and Transparent Peer Review

The Archives of Case Reports follows guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to ensure a fair and ethical review process.

For further inquiries regarding our peer review policy, please contact the editorial office at [email protected].