Peer review

Articles published in World Journal of Case Reports and Clinical Images journals (including its imprints) undergo thorough peer review and World Journal of Case Reports and Clinical Images journal endorse COPE guidelines for reviewers. Journal may operate different peer review processes. Our guide to understanding peer review outlines several different peer review models, including:

• ·         Single-anonymous peer review
• ·         Double-anonymous peer review
• ·         Open peer review
• ·         Registered Reports

Every World Journal of Case Reports and Clinical Images journal publishes a statement describing the model of peer review used by the journal within the journal homepage. A minimum of two independent reviewers is normally required for every research article. The aims and scope of each journal will outline their peer review policy in detail.

The details of the comments as well as the overall recommendations by peer reviewers will be considered by the Editor when making a decision, but ultimate responsibility for acceptance or rejection lies with the Editor.

In accordance with COPE recommendations on ethical editing for new Editors, Editors will assign any submissions they cannot handle (e.g. if they are the author of an article submitted to their own journal) to a member of the Editorial Board or a guest editor.

Please note that World Journal of Case Reports and Clinical Images journals do not permit you to recommend peer reviewers.

Confidentiality of peer review

It is a requirement to maintain confidentiality and integrity of the peer review and editorial decision-making process at all stages, complying with data protection regulations (including GDPR). The invited reviewer should declare any competing interest before submitting their report to the journal. If they wish to involve a colleague as a co-reviewer for an article, they should ask the journal editorial office before sharing the manuscript and include their names, affiliation and any relevant competing interests in the comments for Editors when they return their report.

In the process of investigating an ethical query, the submitted manuscript, author, reviewer, and any other person (including whistle blowers) involved will be treated in confidence. During an investigation it may be necessary for the Editor to share information with third parties, such as the ethics committee and/or the authors’ institution.

Guidelines for peer reviewers

Before you review

Before you agree to review for a journal, it is your professional responsibility to consider the following:

1.     Are you aware of, and able to follow the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers? Please read the ethical guidelines outlined below.

2.     Do you understand the type of peer review used by the journal?

3.     Are you aware of how to submit your review? For most journals, you will complete a form online which may consist of structured questions and/or free text boxes. But in some cases, you may need to email your report to the editor.

4.     Do you have any conflicts of interest? If so, make the editor aware immediately.

5.    Can you complete the review in the allotted time? If you may struggle to meet the deadline, please let the editor know, so they can inform the author.

6.  Is this your first time reviewing, or would you like to refresh your skills? Please take some time to go through our reviewer training and resources.

World Journal of Case Reports and Clinical Images recommend that reviewers also adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers

Peer reviewers must follow these ethical guidelines when reviewing for World Journal of Case Reports and Clinical Images journal articles:

Reviewers must give unbiased consideration to each manuscript submitted. They should judge each on its merits, without regard to race, religion, nationality, gender, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).

Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest before agreeing to review a manuscript. This includes any relationship with the author(s) that may bias their review.

Reviewers must keep the peer review process confidential. They must not share information or correspondence about a manuscript with anyone outside of the peer review process without the explicit permission of the editor.

They must not enter unpublished manuscript files, images or information into databases or tools that do not guarantee confidentiality, are accessible by the public and/or may store or use this information for their own purposes (for example, generative AI tools like ChatGPT).

Reviewers must prepare their report by themselves, unless they have permission from the journal to involve another person. They must also not impersonate others during the review process.

Reviewers must not use artificial intelligence tools to generate manuscript review reports, including LLM based tools like ChatGPT.

Reviewers should provide a constructive, comprehensive, evidenced, and appropriately substantial peer review report. Reviewers are responsible for ensuring any references included within their report are accurate and verifiable.

Reviewers must avoid making statements in their report which might be interpreted as questioning any person’s reputation.

Reviewers should make all reasonable effort to submit their report and recommendation on time. They should inform the editor if this is not possible.

Reviewers should call to the journal editor’s attention any significant similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or submitted manuscripts of which they are aware.

Revisions

When authors make revisions to their article, they are asked to include a list of changes and any comments for the reviewers. The revised version may be assessed by the editor if only minor revisions were requested or may be returned to the original reviewers if available.

You will then be asked to affirm whether the revisions are satisfactory.