Journal of Clinical Case Reports and ImagesFor Reviewers
Guidance for reviewers
A focused review framework for clinical case reports and images: what to check, how to protect confidentiality and how to keep conclusions within the evidence.
Before accepting the invitation
Decline promptly if the subject is outside your competence or if time does not permit a careful review within the requested period. Disclose personal, financial, professional, collaborative and institutional conflicts before accessing the full record.
JCCI considers Case Reports, Clinical Images, Case Series and Technical Notes anchored to documented patient care. Interdisciplinary cases may require complementary expertise; tell the editor when part of the evidence lies outside yours. Reviewer service does not confer any advantage in the handling of the reviewer's own manuscripts.
Review model
Peer review: Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
Review the clinical record
| Dimension | Questions for the reviewer |
|---|---|
| Clinical history | Is the presentation, examination and relevant background complete enough to understand the problem? |
| Diagnostic reasoning | Is the differential stated, are investigations justified, and does the evidence support the diagnosis? |
| Management | Are interventions, response, complications and follow-up reported accurately and in sequence? |
| Literature context | Are the closest comparable reports or guidance represented fairly and cited accurately? |
| Learning value | Does the case clarify recognition, reasoning, management, a procedure, safety or another transferable point? |
| Evidence limit | Do the conclusions avoid unsupported claims of causality, efficacy, prevalence, comparative superiority or population-level safety? Is the learning point clear without requiring the condition to be rare? |
Review clinical images as evidence
Diagnostic quality
Is resolution and acquisition quality sufficient to support the interpretation?
Context
Does the case history explain why the image was obtained and what decision it informed?
Annotation
Are arrows, labels, orientation, stain, magnification and scale accurate and unobtrusive?
Integrity
Are there signs of duplication, inconsistent adjustment, altered meaning or missing original views?
Clinical Images is an image-led report, not simply an illustration attached to a case narrative. The figure, legend and patient context must support its diagnostic or educational contribution. If clinical video is supplied through agreed publication arrangements, assess the recording by the same interpretation, integrity and privacy standards.
Consent, privacy, ethics and misconduct concerns
- Flag missing or inconsistent consent statements and visible patient identifiers to the handling editor. Written-consent verification remains with the editor. Reviewers must not request or circulate sensitive signed consent forms; de-identification alone does not grant permission to publish.
- Flag names, record numbers, full dates of birth, institutional identifiers or identifying details in figures and metadata.
- Check that ethics approval or the applicable institutional position is stated where required.
- Compare text, tables, figures and timeline for unexplained inconsistencies.
- Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, image manipulation or undisclosed conflicts confidentially to the editor; do not investigate the authors independently.
Write a decision-useful report
- Opening assessment
- Summarize the clinical contribution and identify the principal issue affecting publishability. Use CARE for individual case reports; assess case-series selection, methods, outcomes and limitations against guidance appropriate to the design. Technical Notes must demonstrate the technique in a documented patient case or related cases.
- Major points
- Address missing evidence, unclear reasoning, unsupported claims, image problems and essential literature context. Put sensitive consent, privacy or misconduct concerns in confidential comments to the editor, not in comments to the authors.
- Minor points
- List corrections to terminology, presentation, references, captions or readability separately.
- Recommendation
- Select accept, minor revision, major revision or reject and give the editor a concise rationale. The editor makes the decision.
- Re-review
- When invited, compare the revision and response letter with each prior concern and identify what remains unresolved.
Comments should be specific, respectful and proportionate. Do not request citations for personal benefit or recommend paid editing as a condition of a favorable decision.
Confidentiality and use of tools
Do not share the submission or use its information for personal or professional advantage. If specialist advice is needed, ask the editor before involving another person.
Do not use AI, automated content analysis, translation or summarization of manuscript content without prior editorial authorization. Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured. Approval does not transfer responsibility for the review: the reviewer remains accountable for the clinical assessment.
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
Review the record the case can support
Return a confidential, evidence-focused report that helps the editor reach a fair and independent decision.
Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Images · JCCI · ISSN 2641-5518 · Open Access Pub