Peer Review Process

The GMB Case Reports is dedicated to maintaining high standards of scientific integrity, transparency, and accuracy in the review and publication of medical and biomedical case reports. The peer review process is a critical component of ensuring the quality and validity of published research. Below is a detailed outline of GJMBC’s peer review process, which ensures that each submission is thoroughly evaluated by experts in the field.

1. Initial Submission and Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the editorial office conducts an initial screening to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal’s basic submission requirements, including adherence to format, originality, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope. During this stage, manuscripts are assessed for:

• Completeness: Verification that all required sections (e.g., title page, abstract, references, etc.) are included and properly formatted.
• Ethical Standards: Confirmation that all ethical guidelines, such as patient consent and ethical approval, have been followed.
• Plagiarism Check: Manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software to verify the originality of the content.

If the manuscript does not meet these basic standards, it may be returned to the authors for revision before proceeding to the next stage.

2. Assignment to Associate Editor

Once the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to an Associate Editor with expertise in the relevant medical or biomedical field. The Associate Editor evaluates the manuscript’s overall quality and scientific merit, and determines whether it should proceed to peer review. At this stage, the Associate Editor may:

• Reject manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s standards or fall outside the journal’s scope.
• Proceed to Peer Review: Manuscripts deemed suitable for review are sent to external reviewers for evaluation.

3. Selection of Reviewers

GJMBC employs a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept confidential to ensure impartiality. The Associate Editor selects at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are chosen based on:

• Expertise: Reviewers must have relevant knowledge and experience in the manuscript’s subject area.
• Independence: Reviewers must have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the research being evaluated.

Reviewers are asked to confirm their availability and willingness to review the manuscript. Upon acceptance of the review invitation, reviewers are given access to the manuscript and supporting materials.

4. The Peer Review Process

Reviewers are asked to critically assess the manuscript based on several criteria, including:

• Originality and Novelty: Does the case report present new, unique, or rare findings that contribute to the existing medical or biomedical knowledge?
• Scientific and Clinical Relevance: Is the case report clinically or scientifically significant? Does it provide useful insights for practitioners or researchers?
• Methodology: Are the diagnostic, therapeutic, and follow-up procedures adequately described and justified?
• Clarity of Presentation: Is the manuscript well-organized, and are the findings clearly communicated?
• Ethical Standards: Have all ethical guidelines, including informed consent, patient confidentiality, and ethical approval, been followed?

Reviewers provide their feedback through a structured review form, which includes comments for both the authors and the editors. They also make a recommendation on whether the manuscript should be:

• Accepted: With or without minor revisions.
• Revised: Major or minor revisions required before reconsideration.
• Rejected: Due to fundamental flaws in the research or the manuscript’s unsuitability for publication in GMB Case Reports.

5. Reviewer Recommendations and Editor’s Decision

After the peer review process is complete, the Associate Editor reviews the feedback and recommendations from all reviewers. The Associate Editor then makes one of the following editorial decisions:

• Accept: If the manuscript is deemed suitable for publication with no or minor revisions.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor modifications, which can be quickly addressed by the authors.
• Major Revisions: Substantial revisions are needed to improve the manuscript. Authors will need to resubmit the revised manuscript, which may undergo additional review.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in GMB Case Reports, either due to lack of novelty, poor methodology, or other significant issues.

The decision, along with the reviewers' feedback, is communicated to the corresponding author. Authors are provided with detailed reviewer comments to guide the revision process, if applicable.

6. Revision and Resubmission

Authors who receive a decision of minor or major revisions are required to revise their manuscript according to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments. A detailed response to reviewers document must be submitted along with the revised manuscript, outlining how each comment or suggestion was addressed.

• Timeliness: Authors are typically given a deadline for resubmission of the revised manuscript. Extensions may be granted upon request.
• Re-review: Manuscripts that undergo major revisions may be sent back to the original reviewers or new reviewers for additional evaluation.

7. Final Decision

Once the revised manuscript is submitted, the Associate Editor reviews the changes and determines if the manuscript has adequately addressed the reviewers’ concerns. The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor will then make the final decision to:

• Accept the manuscript for publication.
• Request further revisions, if necessary.
• Reject the manuscript if the revisions are not satisfactory.

8. Post-Acceptance

Upon acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the production stage, where it is prepared for publication. Authors will receive proofs for final review to check for typographical errors or formatting issues. Any final corrections must be submitted promptly.

9. Publication

Once the final version is approved, the manuscript is published online as an open-access article under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). The article becomes freely available to the global audience without any access restrictions.

10. Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations

• Confidentiality: Reviewers are required to treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. They must not share or discuss the content with others, except as authorized by the journal’s editorial team.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers are asked to declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation. If a conflict is identified, the reviewer must recuse themselves from the process.

11. Peer Review Integrity

GMB Case Reports is committed to maintaining the integrity and fairness of the peer review process. The journal continuously monitors the review process to ensure that it remains transparent, timely, and objective.

By following this rigorous peer review process, GMB Case Reports ensures that only high-quality, original, and clinically significant case reports are published, contributing to the advancement of medical and biomedical knowledge.