Reviewer Guidelines

The Archives of Case Reports (ACR) relies on a rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality, accuracy, and scientific integrity of published case reports. Peer reviewers play a crucial role in evaluating submitted manuscripts and providing constructive feedback to authors while maintaining confidentiality and adhering to ethical review standards.

Reviewer Guidelines

1. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must critically evaluate manuscripts based on scientific merit, clarity, originality, and ethical considerations specific to case reports.

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must keep all submitted manuscripts confidential and should not share or discuss them outside the review process.
  • Objective and Constructive Feedback: Reviews should be professional, unbiased, and aimed at improving the manuscript.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers should complete their evaluations within the given deadline and notify the editorial team if an extension is needed.
  • Ethical Considerations: Any ethical concerns regarding patient consent, data integrity, or research misconduct should be reported to the editor.

2. Criteria for Evaluating Case Reports

Reviewers must assess case reports based on the following key aspects:

  • Scientific Rigor: The report should be well-documented, factually accurate, and contribute valuable insights to the medical community.
  • Originality and Clinical Significance: The case should highlight rare conditions, new treatments, or novel diagnostic approaches.
  • Ethical Compliance: The report must comply with patient confidentiality rules, including appropriate informed consent.
  • Clarity and Organization: The case should be logically presented with a clear introduction, case details, discussion, and conclusion.
  • Reference Support: Cited literature should be relevant, up-to-date, and properly referenced.

3. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must adhere to ethical guidelines to ensure integrity in the peer review process.

  • Avoiding Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and decline the review if they have personal or professional associations with the authors.
  • Reviewer Anonymity: If the journal follows a double-blind review process, reviewers should not disclose their identities.
  • Reporting Ethical Issues: Reviewers should report concerns about plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical breaches to the editorial office.

4. Providing Constructive Feedback

A high-quality review should be balanced, constructive, and focused on manuscript improvement. Reviewers should:

  • Summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
  • Provide specific, actionable suggestions to enhance clarity and scientific rigor.
  • Suggest additional references or alternative interpretations where relevant.
  • Indicate whether the manuscript meets ethical and scientific standards.

5. Reviewer Recognition and Benefits

ACR values the contributions of its reviewers and acknowledges their efforts through:

  • Annual recognition in the journal’s reviewer acknowledgment section.
  • Opportunities to serve on the editorial board for consistent contributions.
  • Certificates of appreciation for completed reviews.

6. Accepting or Declining Review Requests

Reviewers should accept review invitations only if they have expertise in the case report’s subject and can provide an unbiased evaluation.

  • Accepting a Review: Reviewers should confirm their availability and complete the review within the designated timeframe.
  • Declining a Review: If unable to review, the reviewer should decline promptly and may suggest an alternative expert.

7. Final Recommendation

After reviewing the manuscript, reviewers should recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: The case report meets all quality and ethical standards for publication.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires slight modifications but is fundamentally sound.
  • Major Revisions: Significant issues need to be addressed before reconsideration.
  • Reject: The case report does not meet the journal’s criteria or has critical flaws.

By participating in the peer review process for ACR, reviewers agree to uphold the highest standards of confidentiality, professionalism, and ethical integrity. For any questions regarding the review process, reviewers may contact the editorial office.