European Journal of Medical Case Reports will consider any original case report that adds new information to existing general medical knowledge, and original research relating to case reports in all medical disciplines.

(EJMCR is a not-for-profit journal. We follow ethical publishing practices as recommended by COPE. We don't have any fast-track publication service upon extra payment.) 


 



Prof. Dr. Uwe Maus, (MD)

University Hospital for Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Pius Hospital, Carl-von- Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Germany.

Prof. Dr. Michael J. Reinhardt (MD, PhD)

Director, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Pius-Hospital, Oldenburg, Germany. Medical Faculty of the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University Bonn, Germany.

Dr. M O E Babiker, (MBBS, DPH, MD, FRCPCH, CCT (Paed. Neurology)

EJMCR Associate Editor, Consultant Paediatric Neurologist & Clinical lead for Complex Movement Disorders Service. Royal Bristol Hospital for Children, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.

Dr. Domenico Rubello (MD, PhD)

Professor of Nuclear Medicine and Oncology at Medical School, Padova University, Italy.

Member of experts committee of the Ministry of Health, Spain and Ministry of Health, France, for the revision of scientific projects to be funded.

Dr. Narjess Ayati (MD, IBNM, FEBNM, FANMB, ABNC)

Assistant Professor 
Nuclear Medicine Research Center
Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Iran


Editorial & Peer Review Process



 

1. Submission of Paper

The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is usually via an online system. Occasionally, the journal may accept submissions by email.

2. Editorial Office Assessment

The staff at Editorial Office checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure that it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point, but similarity check is performed to detect any possible plagiarism or redundant submission.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief

The editor(s) checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

4. EIC Assigns an Associate Editor (AE) or Section Editor (where available)

The journal has Associate Editors and section editors who handle the peer review. They are assigned at this stage.

5. Invitation to Reviewers

The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – commonly this is 2, but may vary depending upon the submission type.

6. Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.

7. Review is Conducted

The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

8. Journal Evaluates the Reviews

The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

9. The Decision is Communicated

The editor (or Editorial Office) sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. These comments are anonymous as the journal follows a double-blind peer review policy.

10. Next Steps

If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor includes constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers may also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.





ISSN : 2520-4998