Peer Review

Every submission to the McMaster Evidence-Based Medicine Case Report Journal undergoes a process of peer-review. Our peer reviewers are subject matter experts, sought out specifically for each individual case report to judge the accuracy and merit of the submission. 

Case reports that don't meet the standards will be rejected outright.

Case reports that do meet the standards will be published, though publication is often conditional on completing edits based on the review.

Peer reviewers are basing their assessment of each case report on the following:

Is the submission clear?

• Are the objectives clear?

• Does it flow well?

• Are the prose clear and ordered?

• Are there too many spelling and sentence errors?

Does the submission reflect the literature?

• Are statements supported by literature?

• Do these cited statements accurately reflect the literature?

• Is the literature misinterpreted?

• Did the author include enough of the relevant literature?

Are the clinical details of the case logically presented and complete?

• Is the case presented clearly?

• Are the relevant details included?

• Are there illogical elements in the case presentation?

Authors will receive anonymous comments from their peer reviewers with instructions on how to proceed with their case report. Comments will be organized within each of the following categories:

• Major Compulsory Revisions - the author must respond to these revisions before a decision on publication can be reached.

• Minor Essential Revisions - such as mislabeled figures, or the incorrect use of a term, which the author can be trusted to fix.

• Discretionary Revisions - recommendations for improvement, but which the author can choose to ignore.