The Archives of Case Reports (ACR) is committed to maintaining a robust and transparent peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality and clinically significant case reports. The peer review system ensures that all published case reports contribute valuable knowledge to medical science and clinical practice.

Peer Review Process

1. Initial Manuscript Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team. The goal of this stage is to ensure that the manuscript:

• Falls within the scope of the journal.
• Meets the required ethical and formatting standards.
• Has adequate patient consent (if applicable).

Manuscripts failing to meet these basic criteria may be rejected without external peer review.

2. Selection of Reviewers

Qualified reviewers with expertise in the relevant field of medicine are selected to evaluate the manuscript. The selection process is based on academic qualifications, clinical experience, and previous contributions to case report literature.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

The ACR follows a double-blind review process, where the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept confidential to ensure an unbiased evaluation.

4. Reviewer Assessment

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

• Clinical Relevance: The case should present new insights, rare conditions, or novel approaches in diagnosis or treatment.
• Scientific Accuracy: The information should be supported by evidence, with appropriate references.
• Clarity and Presentation: The manuscript should be well-structured and clearly written.
• Ethical Considerations: Patient confidentiality must be maintained, and informed consent must be obtained.

5. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer feedback, the editorial team makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The case report is approved for publication with no further modifications.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor edits before final acceptance.
• Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial improvements and may undergo a second round of review.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s quality or relevance standards.

6. Revision and Resubmission

If revisions are required, authors are expected to address all reviewer comments and submit a revised version with a point-by-point response. The revised manuscript may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers.

7. Final Acceptance and Publication

Once the manuscript has been approved, it undergoes copyediting, formatting, and proofreading before being published in the journal. Authors receive a proof version for final approval before publication.

8. Post-Publication Review

The ACR encourages post-publication discussions. If significant concerns about the accuracy or ethics of a published case report arise, corrections or retractions may be issued.

9. Ethical Compliance

The peer review process follows the ethical guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any ethical concerns, including potential data fabrication or breaches of patient confidentiality, are investigated thoroughly.

The ACR is committed to ensuring a fair, transparent, and rigorous peer review process. For further information regarding the peer review process, please contact the editorial office.