The European Journal of Medical Case Reports (EJMCR), published by Discover STM Publishing Ltd, relies on independent expert reviewers to assess the clinical, scientific and educational value of submitted manuscripts. These instructions guide reviewers in EJMCR’s double-blind peer-review process.
Reviewers provide independent, reasoned recommendations to the responsible editor, who makes the final editorial decision. Please consult the EJMCR Peer Review Policy alongside these instructions.

 

1. Evaluation Focus

Assess clinical and scientific accuracy, diagnostic reasoning, relevance to practice, the evidence supporting conclusions, clarity, completeness of reporting and educational value. Predicted citation impact or sensational novelty should not determine the recommendation.
A clinically instructive case need not describe a groundbreaking discovery, but its relevance and contribution should be clear.

2. Case-Specific Scientific Content

For case reports, assess the clinical history and presentation, relevant investigations, diagnostic reasoning and differential diagnosis, treatment, outcome, follow-up and a timeline where useful. Check that the discussion situates the case in the literature and that the educational lesson and conclusions follow from the evidence. Do not demand investigations that were not clinically indicated.
For case series, also consider the setting and inclusion period, case selection, consistency of data collection, and similarities and differences among cases. Interpret conclusions in light of the number and nature of cases; a small uncontrolled series does not prove causality.

3. Ethical Considerations

Check that ethics approval, an exemption or a statement that approval was not required is reported as appropriate to the study type. Case reports do not normally require formal research ethics approval. Distinguish consent to participate in research from consent for publication.
Consider whether publication consent is adequately stated for identifiable clinical information or images, and whether patient confidentiality is protected. Refer questions about consent documentation to the Editorial Office; do not request confidential signed forms directly. See EJMCR’s Protection of Research Participants and Discover STM Ethical Policies.
For applicable clinical trials, consider whether the registry and registration number are provided and prospective registration requirements have been addressed. Raise concerns with the editor.

4. Clarity and Structure

Assess whether the manuscript is logically organized and uses medical terminology accurately. Section headings and abstract formats vary by article type; do not impose an IMRaD structure on every submission.
Apply criteria appropriate to the manuscript category and the EJMCR Guide for Authors. For Original Articles and Clinical Audits, assess methods and analysis as appropriate; for audits, consider the journal’s audit-cycle requirements. For Image Articles, Technical Notes, Surgical Videos and other formats, assess clinical accuracy, educational relevance, presentation quality and relevant ethical documentation.
Consider study-appropriate reporting guidance: the CARE reporting guideline for applicable case reports and relevant guidance available through the EQUATOR Network for other study types.

5. Figures, Tables, and Images

Assess the relevance, legibility, labels and captions of figures, tables and clinical images, and their consistency with the text. Check that images represent findings accurately and do not disclose identifying patient information.
Flag material or unexplained alterations and possible data or image-integrity concerns to the editor. Legitimate adjustments must not misrepresent findings. Where verification is needed, ask the editor to seek original, de-identified source images; do not request identifiable records directly.

6. References

Consider whether references are relevant, accurate and balanced, particularly for rare cases. Flag unsupported claims, potentially inaccurate or irrelevant citations, and important omissions that affect interpretation. Reviewers need not verify every reference and should not request citations to their own work unless genuinely relevant.

7. Constructive Feedback

Describe the manuscript’s contribution and strengths, then distinguish major scientific concerns from minor editorial corrections. Give clear, respectful, actionable suggestions, referring to specific sections, tables, figures or statements where possible. Distinguish missing information from unsupported conclusions and avoid vague criticism or requests for extensive new research beyond the article’s reasonable scope.
Provide an independent assessment, disclose any limits in your expertise, and avoid personal attacks or coercive citation requests. Accept an invitation only if you can provide a considered review within the requested timeframe; notify the Editorial Office promptly of any delay.

8. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer identities, reports and editorial correspondence are confidential. Do not distribute or discuss unpublished material or use it for personal or professional advantage. Obtain the editor’s permission before consulting another expert; handle files according to journal procedures. Confidential material must not be disclosed without authorization, except where law requires it.

9. Artificial Intelligence and Confidentiality

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, patient information, unpublished text, images, data or other submission material to publicly accessible generative-AI systems or services where confidentiality cannot be assured. Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, integrity and independence of their reports; AI must not replace professional judgement. Any permitted language assistance must protect confidentiality and leave the reviewer responsible for the final text. See Discover STM Ethical Policies.

10. Competing Interests

Before accepting a review, disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests, including professional, personal, competitive and institutional relationships. Decline if a conflict could reasonably compromise impartiality; notify the editor promptly if a potential conflict emerges later. Disclose uncertainty rather than assuming every minor professional association disqualifies you. See the EJMCR Conflict of Interest Policy.

11. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Support any recommendation for acceptance, revision or rejection with reasons, using the available decision categories. Recommendations are advisory: the responsible editor makes the final editorial decision, including where reviews conflict or further review is needed. Do not promise an outcome to authors.

12. Research Integrity Concerns

Confidentially inform the editor of suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, fabricated or falsified data, problematic image manipulation, unreliable clinical claims, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed competing interests or serious ethical concerns. Explain the concern and available evidence; an allegation is not proof of misconduct. Do not contact authors’ institutions independently or make public accusations. The editor and publisher assess concerns under established ethical procedures and relevant COPE guidance. See the EJMCR Publishing Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement.

13. Related Policies

Read these instructions alongside the EJMCR Peer Review Policy, Editorial & Peer Review Process, Guide for Authors and Discover STM Ethical Policies.
Last reviewed: October 2026
Policy responsibility: EJMCR Editorial Office, in accordance with Discover STM Publishing Ltd policies.