The GMB Case Reports upholds the highest standards of peer review and editorial integrity. As an editor, your role is pivotal in ensuring that all published content is scientifically accurate, clinically relevant, and ethically sound. These guidelines outline the responsibilities and expectations for editors to maintain the quality and credibility of the journal.
1. Editorial Responsibilities
- Ensuring Quality: Editors are responsible for maintaining the scientific rigor of the journal by ensuring that all submitted case reports meet high standards of clarity, accuracy, and originality.
- Fairness and Impartiality: Editors must ensure that all manuscripts are evaluated based on their scientific merit, without bias regarding the author’s gender, ethnicity, nationality, institution, or political beliefs.
- Confidentiality: Editors must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and all communications with authors and reviewers. Manuscripts should not be disclosed to anyone outside the editorial and peer-review process.
- Timely Decisions: Editors should ensure that decisions on submissions are made promptly, respecting the time of both authors and reviewers. Timely communication regarding the status of a manuscript is critical.
2. Manuscript Handling and Review Process
- Initial Evaluation: Editors should assess each manuscript to determine whether it aligns with the journal’s aims and scope. Submissions that do not meet the journal's criteria or are of low quality may be rejected at this stage without external review.
- Peer Review: Manuscripts that pass initial screening should be sent for double-blind peer review. Editors are responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers with relevant expertise, ensuring that there is no conflict of interest.
- Decision Making: After considering the reviewers' recommendations, the editor must make one of the following decisions:
- Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication with minor or no revisions.
- Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires some small changes before acceptance.
- Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial changes and must be resubmitted for further review.
- Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.
- Final Decision: While taking peer reviewer comments into account, the final decision on whether to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the editor. Editors are expected to justify their decision with clear, constructive feedback.
3. Ethical Considerations
- Plagiarism: Editors must ensure that submitted manuscripts are original and free from plagiarism. The journal employs plagiarism detection tools, and any case of suspected plagiarism must be investigated thoroughly.
- Conflicts of Interest: Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where there is a potential conflict of interest, such as personal or professional relationships with the authors.
- Ethical Approval: Editors should confirm that all case reports involving human subjects or medical research have received appropriate ethical approval from an institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee. Authors must also confirm patient consent, especially in cases involving identifiable patient information.
- Retractions and Corrections: If errors are identified post-publication, editors must be proactive in issuing corrections or retractions. Retractions should be considered in cases of serious ethical breaches or major errors that invalidate the case report’s conclusions.
4. Communication with Authors
- Constructive Feedback: Editors must provide clear, constructive, and respectful feedback to authors, whether the manuscript is accepted, revised, or rejected. Authors should receive detailed explanations for any required revisions or the reasons behind a rejection.
- Revision Monitoring: Editors are responsible for monitoring revisions to ensure that authors have adequately addressed all reviewer comments and suggestions.
- Appeals: Editors should be open to receiving appeals from authors regarding rejected manuscripts. These appeals should be reviewed fairly, and if necessary, referred to an independent reviewer for reconsideration.
5. Peer Reviewer Management
- Selection of Reviewers: Editors are responsible for selecting qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the submitted manuscript. Reviewers should have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the subject matter.
- Reviewer Anonymity: In line with the double-blind review process, reviewers’ identities should remain confidential unless both the reviewer and author agree to open identification.
- Reviewer Conduct: Editors should ensure that peer reviewers conduct themselves professionally and provide constructive, unbiased, and timely feedback. Unprofessional reviews, such as those containing personal or irrelevant criticism, should be discouraged.
- Reviewer Recognition: Editors are encouraged to acknowledge the efforts of peer reviewers, either through public recognition or certification of contributions, to foster ongoing collaboration with the journal.
6. Appeals and Complaints
- Handling Complaints: Editors must be responsive to complaints from authors, reviewers, or readers. Complaints about ethical issues, the review process, or published content should be handled in a transparent and timely manner.
- Appeal Process: If authors appeal an editorial decision, editors should review the case carefully and, if appropriate, engage an independent reviewer for further evaluation. The outcome of the appeal should be communicated clearly to the author.
7. Continuous Improvement
- Editorial Development: Editors should stay informed about best practices in medical publishing, ethical guidelines, and emerging trends in case report writing. Continuous learning ensures that editors maintain the highest standards of review and decision-making.
- Journal Growth: Editors are expected to contribute to the development and visibility of the journal by encouraging high-quality submissions, engaging with the global medical community, and promoting the journal's content.
By adhering to these guidelines, editors of GMB Case Reports ensure that the journal remains a reputable and trusted source for the dissemination of important clinical findings and contributes meaningfully to the medical and biomedical fields.
