Indexing & Abstracting
At the GMB Case Reports, peer reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the quality and integrity of our journal. As a reviewer, your expertise and insights ensure that case reports published are accurate, clinically relevant, and add value to the medical and biomedical community. These guidelines will help you in carrying out your responsibilities efficiently and in line with the journal’s standards.
Provide Constructive Feedback: As a reviewer, your primary responsibility is to provide thorough, objective, and constructive feedback to help the authors improve their manuscript. Your comments should be clear, specific, and focused on the scientific merit, clinical relevance, and presentation quality of the manuscript.
Evaluate the Manuscript’s Quality: You are expected to assess whether the case report is original, relevant, scientifically sound, and well-written. Any concerns about the methodology, ethical standards, or interpretation of results should be raised in your review.
Maintain Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document. Do not share or discuss it with anyone outside the peer-review process. If you seek input from a colleague or co-reviewer, you must first obtain permission from the editor.
Declare Conflicts of Interest: If you have any personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest that could affect your objectivity, please inform the editorial team and recuse yourself from reviewing the manuscript.
Timely Reviews: Aim to complete your review within the specified time frame (usually 2-3 weeks). If you are unable to meet the deadline, inform the editor as soon as possible so that alternative arrangements can be made.
When reviewing a case report, please consider the following key aspects:
Relevance: Does the manuscript align with the journal’s aims and scope? Does the case provide meaningful clinical or scientific insights that will interest the journal’s readership?
Originality and Novelty: Is the case report novel or unique? Does it describe a rare disease, an unusual presentation, a novel diagnostic or therapeutic approach, or an unexpected outcome?
Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-organized and clearly written? Are the introduction, case description, and discussion sections logically structured? Is the information presented in a way that is easy to understand?
Scientific Rigor: Assess the validity and reliability of the case report’s observations and conclusions. Are the facts presented accurately? Are the clinical or scientific interpretations reasonable and supported by evidence?
Ethical Considerations: Ensure that appropriate ethical standards are followed, including obtaining informed consent from patients and approval from relevant ethics committees (if applicable). Any identifiable patient information should be appropriately anonymized.
Each section of the manuscript should be evaluated on specific criteria:
Title: Is the title clear and reflective of the case report’s content? Does it appropriately capture the essence of the case?
Abstract: Does the abstract provide a concise and informative summary of the case report, including the clinical background, main findings, and conclusions?
Introduction: Does the introduction provide sufficient background information on the clinical issue or disease being reported? Does it explain the importance of the case?
Case Description: Is the case described in sufficient detail, with all relevant clinical, diagnostic, and treatment information? Is the patient’s medical history, presentation, and course of treatment clearly outlined?
Discussion: Does the discussion adequately interpret the findings and explain their significance? Are the case’s implications for clinical practice clearly stated? Does the discussion compare the case to existing literature, highlighting its novelty or relevance?
Conclusion: Does the conclusion succinctly summarize the main findings and clinical lessons from the case? Are future directions or recommendations clearly stated?
References: Are the references relevant and up to date? Do they provide sufficient context for the case? Are all cited studies appropriately referenced?
After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers are typically asked to recommend one of the following:
Accept: The manuscript is of high quality and ready for publication with no or minor revisions.
Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small changes, such as improvements to clarity, structure, or referencing, but is fundamentally sound. Authors should be able to address these revisions quickly.
Major Revisions: The manuscript has potential but requires substantial changes to the content, methodology, or presentation. Authors will need to revise the manuscript thoroughly and resubmit it for further review.
Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form due to significant flaws in scientific rigor, ethical issues, or lack of relevance to the journal’s audience. If the manuscript is rejected, reviewers should clearly explain why.
Your review should be structured to offer clear and constructive feedback:
Overall Assessment: Begin by providing a summary of your overall impression of the manuscript. Highlight the main strengths and any significant concerns.
Specific Comments: Break down your comments into sections corresponding to the manuscript (e.g., abstract, introduction, case description, discussion). Offer specific suggestions for improvement, such as clarifying unclear points, adding missing information, or correcting errors.
Tone and Professionalism: Be respectful and professional in your feedback. Avoid overly critical or harsh language. Aim to provide constructive suggestions that will help the authors improve their work.
Confidential Comments to the Editor: If you have concerns that should not be shared with the authors (e.g., suspicions of plagiarism or ethical breaches), provide these comments confidentially to the editor.
Plagiarism and Redundant Publication: If you suspect plagiarism, redundant publication, or ethical misconduct, notify the editor immediately. Do not directly address these concerns with the authors.
Patient Confidentiality: Ensure that patient confidentiality is respected throughout the manuscript. No identifying information should be disclosed unless it is essential and proper consent has been obtained.
Fairness and Impartiality: Review the manuscript solely on its scientific and clinical merits. Avoid bias based on the authors’ nationality, institution, gender, or personal beliefs.
If you are unable to review a manuscript, whether due to time constraints or a conflict of interest, inform the editor promptly. If possible, suggest alternative reviewers who may be more suitable for the manuscript.
Stay Informed: Reviewers are encouraged to stay up to date with developments in their field and in the peer review process. Continuous learning will help improve the quality of your reviews and contribute to the journal’s success.
Reviewer Recognition: The journal recognizes the importance of peer reviewers and may provide certificates of appreciation or acknowledgment of your contributions. Your efforts are essential to maintaining the journal’s reputation for excellence.
By adhering to these guidelines, reviewers for the GMB Case Reports play a critical role in ensuring that the journal publishes high-quality, impactful case reports that advance medical knowledge and clinical practice. Your contributions are invaluable to the journal’s mission and the broader medical community.