The Archives of Case Reports (ACR) acknowledges the essential role of peer reviewers in ensuring the accuracy, integrity, and scientific rigor of published case reports. Reviewers contribute significantly to the editorial process by providing objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts. Their expertise ensures that only high-quality, clinically relevant, and ethically sound case reports are published.

Reviewer's Responsibilities

1. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

Reviewers must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential. The content, patient data, and findings of a case report should not be shared, discussed, or disclosed to anyone other than the editorial team. Reviewers must:

• Ensure that the manuscript remains confidential and is not used for personal research or professional gain.
• Refrain from discussing the manuscript with unauthorized individuals, including colleagues and students.
• Report any suspected ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, or misuse of patient data, to the editorial office.

2. Objectivity and Fairness

Reviewers must provide an impartial evaluation of the manuscript, ensuring that their feedback is based on scientific merit and clinical relevance rather than personal biases. They should:

• Critically assess the clinical significance, methodology, and case presentation.
• Avoid personal criticisms of the authors and focus on constructive suggestions.
• Maintain a fair and professional attitude in their reviews.

3. Constructive and Detailed Feedback

Reviewers should provide specific and constructive feedback that helps authors improve their manuscript. A comprehensive review should:

• Identify both strengths and weaknesses in the case description, discussion, and conclusions.
• Provide recommendations for improvement, such as better case presentation, clearer discussion, or additional literature references.
• Ensure that the manuscript is well-structured, logically organized, and scientifically sound.
• Recommend appropriate references if additional citations are needed.

4. Timeliness and Commitment

The peer review process depends on timely evaluations. Reviewers should:

• Respond to review invitations promptly and accept assignments only if they can complete them within the given timeframe.
• Inform the editor immediately if they need an extension due to unforeseen circumstances.
• Submit their reviews by the specified deadline to avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process.

5. Identifying Ethical Issues

Reviewers should be vigilant in detecting ethical concerns and research misconduct, including:

• Instances of plagiarism, duplicate submission, or data fabrication.
• Improper patient consent or lack of adherence to ethical research guidelines.
• Potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed by the authors.

Any ethical concerns should be reported confidentially to the editorial office.

6. Avoiding Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect their ability to provide an unbiased review. They should:

• Decline to review manuscripts where they have personal, financial, or professional conflicts with the authors.
• Refrain from reviewing manuscripts where they have prior knowledge of unpublished data from the study.
• Notify the editorial office immediately if a conflict of interest arises during the review process.

7. Providing a Final Recommendation

After completing their evaluation, reviewers must provide a recommendation regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication. The possible recommendations include:

• Accept: The manuscript meets all scientific, ethical, and quality standards and is ready for publication.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires slight modifications before acceptance.
• Major Revisions: The manuscript has significant issues that require extensive revisions before reconsideration.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s publication criteria or has major flaws that cannot be corrected.

8. Commitment to Scientific Integrity

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the scientific integrity of case reports. They must:

• Ensure that all manuscripts meet scientific validity and ethical research standards.
• Encourage case reports that contribute to medical knowledge and benefit clinical practice.
• Uphold the journal’s commitment to fairness, transparency, and excellence in scientific publishing.

The ACR sincerely appreciates the contributions of its reviewers and recognizes their essential role in maintaining the journal’s quality and credibility. For any inquiries regarding the review process, reviewers may contact the editorial office.