The European Journal of Medical Case Reports (EJMCR), published by Discover STM Publishing Ltd, uses initial editorial assessment and double-blind peer review to evaluate manuscripts submitted for publication. The journal follows the publisher’s Peer Review Policy.

Initial Editorial Assessment

All submissions first undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine their suitability for EJMCR. The assessment may consider relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, manuscript type, submission requirements, originality, reporting quality, ethical requirements, clinical or scientific validity, and major methodological concerns. A manuscript may be declined before external review if it falls outside the scope, fails essential requirements, has fundamental methodological or ethical problems, or is otherwise unsuitable for further consideration.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts considered suitable for external review are normally sent to a minimum of two independent external experts with appropriate subject expertise. Reviewers are selected for their expertise, independence and absence of inappropriate competing interests. EJMCR uses a double-blind process: authors’ identities are withheld from reviewers in accordance with the journal’s process, and reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors. Reviewer reports and identities are treated confidentially.

You can access our Editorial & Peer Review Process here.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide objective and constructive assessments appropriate to the manuscript type. They should evaluate clinical or scientific merit, methods, interpretation and reporting where relevant; identify important strengths and limitations; explain the reasons for their recommendations; and alert the editor to ethical or research-integrity concerns. Reviewers must protect confidentiality, disclose relevant competing interests and decline an invitation if they cannot assess the work impartially.

Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports and editorial correspondence are confidential. Reviewers must not distribute or share manuscript material without permission. A reviewer wishing to seek advice from another person must first obtain the editor’s approval. Unpublished information must not be used for personal or professional advantage. Confidential information may be disclosed only where required by law or another overriding legal obligation.

Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers and Editors

Reviewers and editors 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. They remain responsible for their own assessments, reports and decisions. AI tools must not replace independent reviewer or editorial judgement. Further requirements are set out in the Discover STM Ethical Policies.

Competing Interests

Reviewers must disclose relevant financial, professional, personal or other competing interests and should decline an invitation where a conflict could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, impartiality. Editors must also disclose relevant competing interests and recuse themselves from handling a manuscript where appropriate.

Editorial Decisions and Further Review

Reviewer assessments and recommendations are advisory. The responsible editor considers the reports and independently makes the final editorial decision on the manuscript’s merit, integrity, relevance and suitability for EJMCR. Where reviews materially conflict, the editor may seek clarification or an additional expert opinion. Revised manuscripts are assessed by the editor and may be returned to reviewers or sent for further review before a decision.

Editorial Independence and Research Integrity

Editorial decisions are independent of Article Processing Charges and other commercial considerations. Payment does not influence the decision or guarantee acceptance. Concerns about plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image or data manipulation, unethical research, authorship or other potential misconduct are assessed under the journal’s and publisher’s ethical policies. A concern is evaluated on its merits before an editorial outcome is determined.