Case Reports and Reviews: Open Access

Case Reports and Reviews: Open Access employs a rigorous single-blind peer review process. All submitted manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are evaluated by independent expert reviewers before a publication decision is reached. The peer review procedures described on this page are informed by internationally recognised publication ethics best practices.

Single-Blind Peer Review
The journal operates a single-blind review model: reviewers are aware of the identities of the authors, but authors are not informed of the identities of their reviewers. This model is widely used in clinical and medical publishing and enables reviewers to provide frank, substantive feedback.

Initial Editorial Screening
All manuscripts undergo initial screening by the editorial office before being assigned for peer review. This screening evaluates:
● Compliance with the journal's aims, scope, and article types
● Adherence to submission and formatting requirements
● Preliminary assessment of originality using plagiarism detection software
● Completeness of ethical declarations, including patient consent documentation and conflict of interest statements
● Basic scientific and clinical plausibility

Manuscripts that do not meet minimum criteria may be returned for revision or rejected without external review. Authors will be notified promptly.

Reviewer Selection
The editorial office identifies reviewers with relevant clinical or scientific expertise for each submission, based on their published record in the relevant specialty area. The journal avoids assigning reviewers with known conflicts of interest with the submitting authors, including close collaborators, members of the same research group, or individuals with a competing financial interest in the subject matter.

Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
● Provide a thorough, objective, and constructive written evaluation of the manuscript
● Assess the scientific accuracy, clinical relevance, methodological quality, and presentation of the work
● Declare any conflict of interest and decline the invitation if one exists
● Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript content and associated correspondence
● Complete their review within the agreed timeframe, or notify the editorial office promptly if unable to do so
● Refrain from using unpublished information from the manuscript for their own research or disclosing it to third parties

Editorial Decisions
Based on the peer review reports and the editors' own assessment, the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor will reach one of the following decisions:
● Accept without revision
● Accept pending minor revisions
● Request major revisions (with further review)
● Reject with the option to resubmit
● Reject without invitation to resubmit

All decisions are communicated to the corresponding author with a summary of the reasoning and, where applicable, the anonymised reviewer comments.

Revision Process
Where revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a detailed point-by-point response to the reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts are typically reviewed by the original reviewers, though the editor retains discretion to assign new reviewers where appropriate. Failure to respond within the stated deadline may result in the manuscript being treated as a new submission.

Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts and reviewer communications are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose manuscript content or editorial correspondence to any third party without the explicit written consent of the corresponding author. Manuscripts under review must not be shared, cited, or discussed publicly.

Conflict of Interest in Peer Review
Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest when accepting a review invitation. Conflicts include a close professional or personal relationship with any author, a financial interest in the subject matter, or a competing submission currently under review elsewhere. Editors who identify a conflict must recuse themselves from the decision-making process for that manuscript.

Editorial Independence
Peer review and editorial decisions are conducted entirely independently of the publisher. No commercial, financial, or institutional pressure influences editorial outcomes. The Editor-in-Chief or handling editors holds final authority over all publication decisions.