Associate Editor Guidelines

As an Associate Editor of the GMB Case Reports, you play a crucial role in supporting the editorial process and ensuring the publication of high-quality case reports. The Associate Editor serves as a key intermediary between the Editor-in-Chief, reviewers, and authors, assisting with manuscript management, peer review, and editorial decisions. These guidelines outline your responsibilities and expectations to maintain the journal’s high standards.

1. Role and Responsibilities

• Manuscript Evaluation: Upon receiving a manuscript, Associate Editors must conduct an initial assessment to determine whether it fits the journal’s scope and meets the basic quality criteria. You should assess the clarity, originality, and relevance of the case report before sending it for peer review or recommending rejection.

• Peer Review Management: You are responsible for selecting qualified, impartial reviewers for each assigned manuscript. This involves:

  • Identifying reviewers with appropriate expertise.
  • Ensuring that reviewers are free from conflicts of interest.
  • Monitoring the peer review process to ensure timely and fair evaluations.

• Decision Recommendations: Based on the peer review feedback, Associate Editors are expected to make recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts. Your recommendation should be well-supported by the reviewers’ comments and your own judgment of the manuscript’s quality.

• Providing Feedback: When recommending revisions, you must offer clear, constructive feedback to authors, summarizing the key points raised by the reviewers. Authors should be given actionable suggestions to improve their manuscripts.

• Supporting the Editorial Process: As an Associate Editor, you assist in maintaining the overall quality of the journal by collaborating with the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial team. You may be asked to contribute to discussions about journal policies, special issues, or future directions.

2. Manuscript Assessment Criteria

When evaluating manuscripts, Associate Editors should focus on the following criteria:

• Relevance: Ensure that the case report aligns with the journal’s aims and scope, contributing valuable clinical or scientific insights to the medical and biomedical communities.

• Originality: The manuscript should present unique, rare, or novel aspects of a case that are of interest to the journal’s readership. Case reports should add to existing knowledge or highlight an innovative approach to diagnosis, treatment, or patient management.

• Clarity: The manuscript must be well-structured, with clear and concise writing. Complex concepts should be explained adequately to ensure comprehension by both specialists and general readers.

• Scientific Rigor: Ensure that the methods, observations, and conclusions are presented with sound clinical or scientific reasoning. The discussion should be evidence-based and consistent with current medical knowledge.

• Ethical Standards: Confirm that ethical standards have been followed, including obtaining informed consent from patients, approval from relevant ethics committees (if applicable), and adherence to patient confidentiality.

3. Peer Review Process

The peer review process is a critical component of maintaining the journal’s integrity. As an Associate Editor, your role in managing this process is essential:

• Selecting Reviewers: Carefully select reviewers with the appropriate expertise for the manuscript’s subject matter. Avoid assigning reviewers who may have conflicts of interest, such as personal or professional relationships with the authors.

• Monitoring Review Progress: Ensure that peer reviewers provide timely, constructive feedback. Follow up with reviewers who are delayed or unresponsive, and manage the review process efficiently to avoid unnecessary delays for authors.

• Quality Control: Review the quality of the feedback provided by peer reviewers. Ensure that their comments are professional, constructive, and relevant. If a review is overly harsh, biased, or unhelpful, it may be necessary to seek an additional opinion or provide further guidance to the reviewer.

• Balancing Reviewer Opinions: In cases where reviewers have conflicting recommendations, it is your responsibility to carefully assess their feedback and provide a balanced recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. Use your expertise to determine which aspects of the reviews are most relevant to the manuscript’s quality.

4. Decision-Making Process

Associate Editors play an integral role in the final decision-making process for each manuscript. You are expected to:

• Make Informed Recommendations: After reviewing the manuscript and considering the reviewers’ feedback, provide a well-justified recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. Recommendations may include:

  • Accept: The manuscript is of high quality and can be published with minimal revisions.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript is largely acceptable but requires small adjustments before publication.
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript has potential but requires substantial changes. The revised version will need to be re-evaluated by reviewers.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s quality or relevance standards and should not be published.

• Provide Clear Justifications: When recommending revisions or rejection, give clear and specific reasons for your decision. Highlight the main points that need to be addressed and, if applicable, guide the authors on how they can improve their submission for future consideration.

5. Ethical Considerations

• Conflicts of Interest: Disclose any conflicts of interest you may have with a manuscript or its authors. If a conflict arises, you should recuse yourself from handling the manuscript and notify the Editor-in-Chief.

• Confidentiality: Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript throughout the editorial process. Do not disclose any information about the manuscript to anyone outside the editorial team and assigned reviewers.

• Ethical Compliance: Ensure that all case reports have obtained appropriate ethical approval, especially for cases involving human subjects. Verify that informed consent has been received, particularly for any identifiable patient information included in the report.

6. Communication with Authors

As an Associate Editor, you are responsible for maintaining respectful, constructive communication with authors. Key points to keep in mind include:

• Providing Constructive Feedback: When recommending revisions, communicate clearly with authors, summarizing key reviewer comments and offering guidance on how they can improve their manuscript.

• Timely Responses: Ensure that authors receive timely feedback throughout the review process. If delays occur, keep authors informed of the status of their manuscript.

• Addressing Author Queries: Be open to addressing any questions or concerns raised by authors. If authors wish to appeal a decision, ensure their concerns are handled fairly and transparently.

7. Continuous Improvement

• Editorial Development: Associate Editors are encouraged to stay up to date with the latest developments in their field, as well as in editorial best practices. Continuous learning will help improve your decision-making and contribute to the journal’s growth.

• Journal Promotion: Actively contribute to the promotion of the journal by encouraging high-quality submissions and engaging with the broader academic and clinical communities.

By adhering to these guidelines, Associate Editors will contribute to the success and integrity of GMB Case Reports. Your role ensures that each manuscript undergoes thorough evaluation and that only the highest-quality case reports are published, benefiting clinicians, researchers, and the broader medical community worldwide.