Peer Review Process

1. Submission Stage

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's submission platform, ensuring compliance with GJMCCR’s formatting and ethical guidelines. To maintain the double-blind process, submissions must include:

1. A title page with author details (uploaded separately).

2. A blinded manuscript with no identifying information (names, affiliations, or acknowledgments).

3. Supplementary materials and data files, if applicable.

Submissions undergo a preliminary review for adherence to ethical and formatting standards, plagiarism checks using tools like iThenticate, and alignment with the journal’s scope.

2. Editorial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor assigns the manuscript to an Associate Editor specializing in the relevant field. The Associate Editor then conducts a detailed preliminary assessment, focusing on the manuscript’s novelty, scientific rigor, and relevance to the journal’s focus on medical and clinical case reports. Editorial discretion is used to decide whether to forward the manuscript to peer reviewers, request minor corrections before review, or reject it outright due to misalignment with journal scope or fundamental issues in quality. This stage ensures only relevant and potentially impactful studies proceed to the review process.

3. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, academic credentials, and absence of conflicts of interest. The editorial team ensures that at least two qualified reviewers are assigned to evaluate the manuscript. Reviewers receive anonymized manuscripts and are required to:

1. Maintain confidentiality throughout and after the review.

2. Adhere to ethical guidelines as per COPE and other regulatory bodies.

3. Declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting the review task.

4. Double-Blinded Peer-Review Process

The reviewers assess the manuscript without knowing the identity of the authors. Similarly, authors do not know who the reviewers are. This ensures unbiased feedback and eliminates potential prejudices. Reviewers evaluate:

1. Originality and significance of the case report.

2. Scientific rigor of methods and findings.

3. Adherence to ethical standards, such as patient consent.

4. Clarity, coherence, and contribution to medical knowledge.

They provide detailed feedback for authors and confidential comments for editors. Reviewer recommendations are categorized as accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject.

5. Editorial Decision

The Associate Editor synthesizes reviewer feedback and submits a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. The final decision is based on:

1. Reviewer comments and their consistency.

2. The overall quality of the manuscript.

3. Compliance with ethical and publishing standards.

Authors receive a decision letter detailing reviewer feedback. For revisions, clear instructions and deadlines are provided.

6. Revision and Re-Review

Authors of manuscripts requiring revisions submit a revised version along with a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer comment point-by-point. Minor revisions are typically reviewed internally by the Associate Editor or Editor-in-Chief, while major revisions are sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation. This step ensures that all reviewer concerns are adequately addressed and that the revised manuscript meets the journal’s standards. The re-review process typically follows a streamlined timeline, encouraging reviewers to focus on the revised sections without re-evaluating previously accepted parts, facilitating a faster and more efficient review process.

7. Final Decision

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief after considering all reviews and revisions. Manuscripts that successfully address all reviewer and editorial concerns are accepted for publication. Those that fail to meet requirements are rejected, with authors receiving a detailed explanation. Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage, including copyediting and formatting. In some cases, authors of rejected manuscripts may be invited to submit a significantly revised version as a new submission. The final decision stage emphasizes transparency and provides constructive guidance to authors, ensuring continuous improvement and adherence to scientific excellence.

8. Post-Acceptance

Once a manuscript is accepted, it undergoes professional proofreading to ensure clarity, grammatical accuracy, and adherence to the journal’s formatting standards. Authors are provided with proofs for final approval, enabling them to review and address any last-minute corrections before publication. The finalized manuscript is published in the upcoming issue or on a rolling basis, depending on the journal’s publishing schedule. Each article is assigned a DOI, enhancing its visibility and accessibility in digital platforms. Post-publication, authors are encouraged to share their work widely while adhering to the journal’s copyright and distribution policies.

9. Ethical Standards

GJMCCR follows regulatory guidelines for open-access publishing without exception. These include:

1. Compliance with COPE’s ethical guidelines for authorship, review, and editorial practices.

2. Ensuring all case reports have documented patient consent.

3. Maintaining transparency and accountability throughout the publication process.

The journal also ensures adherence to Creative Commons licensing policies and DOAJ standards, making articles freely accessible while protecting intellectual property rights.

10. Continuous Improvement

The journal continuously refines its peer-review process to improve efficiency, fairness, and quality. Regular feedback is sought from reviewers, authors, and editors to identify areas for improvement. Training sessions are conducted for reviewers to enhance their evaluation skills, ensuring high-quality and constructive feedback. The editorial board periodically reviews the journal’s policies to stay aligned with international best practices and technological advancements. Metrics such as average review timelines, acceptance rates, and reviewer performance are monitored to maintain process efficiency. This commitment to improvement ensures GJMCCR remains a trusted and respected platform for publishing medical and clinical case reports.