Reviewer Guidelines

Supporting rigorous, fair, and clinically meaningful peer review for JCCI.

Reviewers are essential to the quality and credibility of the Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Images (JCCI). Your assessment helps validate clinical reasoning, identify educational value, and ensure that patient privacy and ethical standards are respected. Reviews should be objective, constructive, and focused on clinical relevance.

Confirm that you have the expertise and time needed to evaluate the manuscript. If there is any conflict of interest or if the submission falls outside your expertise, decline promptly so that another reviewer can be assigned.

• Confirm that you can complete the review within the requested timeline.
• Disclose any conflicts of interest, including personal or institutional ties.
• Maintain confidentiality and do not share the manuscript with others.

JCCI publishes case reports and images that offer clear learning value. Evaluate whether the case presents an unusual clinical feature, diagnostic challenge, or management insight that adds to the literature.

• Does the report provide a distinct teaching point for clinicians?
• Is the case rare or does it highlight an under recognized presentation?
• Are conclusions supported by clinical evidence rather than speculation?

Beyond novelty, a strong submission must explain why the case matters for patient care. Reviewers should assess the clarity of the learning points and whether the report adds practical insight to diagnostic reasoning or treatment decisions.

• Does the report explain how clinical practice might change?
• Are the learning points clearly articulated and evidence based?
• Is the outcome relevant to patient safety or quality of care?

Case reports should be grounded in prior literature. Reviewers should check whether the discussion includes key references and accurately positions the case within existing evidence.

• Are comparable cases or studies cited appropriately?
• Does the discussion clarify how this case adds new insight?
• Are claims consistent with the cited literature?

Case reports should follow a logical clinical narrative with complete data. Reviewers should evaluate whether the patient history, examination, investigations, treatment, and outcomes are described clearly and in appropriate detail.

• Is the clinical timeline coherent and complete?
• Are diagnostic tests and differential diagnoses explained adequately?
• Are treatment decisions justified and outcomes reported clearly?
• Does the discussion compare findings with relevant literature?

For case series, assess whether the cases are related and whether outcomes are summarized systematically. For technical notes, determine whether the described procedure is reproducible and includes appropriate safety details.

• Is there a consistent methodology across cases?
• Are inclusion criteria and case selection clearly described?
• Does the technique description include equipment, steps, and potential risks?

Images are central to JCCI. Reviewers should assess image quality, labeling, and relevance to the case narrative. Images should be clear enough to support the clinical learning point.

• Are images high resolution and properly annotated?
• Do figure legends explain the clinical significance?
• Is patient identity protected in all images?
• Are images necessary to the case report or redundant?

Reviewers should confirm that images have not been manipulated in ways that change clinical meaning. Basic contrast or brightness adjustments are acceptable only when they improve interpretability without altering findings.

• Look for duplicated panels or inconsistent magnification labels.
• Confirm that arrows or markers are accurate and not misleading.
• Request additional views if the key feature is unclear.

Reviewers should confirm that ethical standards are met. Case reports must include patient consent, and any use of identifiable images must be justified with appropriate permissions.

• Is patient consent clearly documented?
• Are ethical approvals stated when required by local policy?
• Are conflicts of interest and funding disclosures included?

Clarity matters for clinical learning. Reviewers should note unclear sentences, missing transitions, or confusing timelines that could affect interpretation. If language issues obscure meaning, recommend professional editing.

• Is the abstract concise and consistent with the main text?
• Does the discussion summarize lessons without overstating conclusions?
• Are figure legends and tables written in clear clinical language?

JCCI encourages adherence to reporting guidelines to improve clarity and reproducibility. Reviewers should check for alignment with the CARE checklist and for structured, clear reporting.

• CARE guidelines for case reports and case series.
• Structured abstracts where required.
• Clear citation of relevant literature.

Clinical cases often highlight access or equity challenges. If relevant, encourage authors to describe social or system factors that influenced outcomes. Diverse patient representation strengthens the learning value of case reports.

• Are demographic details presented respectfully and accurately?
• Do authors acknowledge access barriers or delays in care?
• Are patient perspectives or quality of life outcomes described when relevant?

Provide feedback that helps authors improve clinical clarity and educational value. Separate major issues from minor corrections and reference specific sections to make revisions easier.

• Major issues: missing clinical details, unclear outcomes, or ethical gaps.
• Minor issues: grammar, formatting, or clarity improvements.
• Suggest additional references only when they strengthen the discussion.

When submitting your review, provide a clear recommendation to the editor and summarize your rationale.

• Accept: clinically valuable, well reported, and ethically sound.
• Minor revision: strong case with limited edits needed.
• Major revision: substantial improvements required for clarity or integrity.
• Reject: out of scope, lacks novelty, or insufficient clinical evidence.

Report any concerns that could undermine the validity or integrity of the case report.

• Inconsistencies between narrative, tables, and figures.
• Claims not supported by the data presented.
• Missing consent for identifiable images.
• Suspected plagiarism or duplicate publication.

If you are invited to review a revised manuscript, verify that the authors addressed each comment and improved the case narrative and image clarity. Highlight any remaining concerns that affect clinical interpretation. Timely re reviews support authors and keep publication schedules on track for the journal.

All submissions are confidential. Do not use the manuscript content for personal or professional advantage. If you need to consult a colleague for technical insight, request permission from the editor first.

Reviews should be firm but respectful. Focus on the quality of evidence and clinical reasoning rather than the authors. If recommending rejection, explain the core scientific or ethical reasons so that the decision is clear and fair.

• Avoid personal language or dismissive tone.
• Highlight strengths as well as weaknesses.
• Suggest practical improvements when possible.

Do not upload manuscripts to external AI tools or public platforms. If you use local tools to assist with grammar checks or note organization, ensure confidentiality is maintained and that your review remains your own judgment.

Thoughtful peer review advances clinical education and professional practice. JCCI values reviewers who provide consistent, timely, and constructive feedback. Keep personal notes for learning, but do not retain manuscript files once the review is complete.

Last updated: January 2026.