peer review g uidline n.
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Peer Review G uidline

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 14

Peer Review G uidline - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Peer Review G uidline. Why Peer Review?. For authors: Quality of their publications and quality of the scientific record will be improved. For Editors and journals: They can make a good decision for accepting or rejecting a paper.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Peer Review G uidline' - damia

Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
why peer review
Why Peer Review?
  • For authors: Quality of their publications and quality of the scientific record will be improved.
  • For Editors and journals: They can make a good decision for accepting or rejecting a paper.
  • For reviewers: Reviewers become a better reviewer! It can be a learning by doing process.
our mission
Our Mission
  • Our aim is to improve worldwide health results and share clinical information with case reports. We also want to support healthcare professionals for making the best possible care of patients. In addition clicase can be a reservoir of case reports and clinical hypothesis for teaching and proposing new approaches of medicine and also for conducting secondary researches.
peer review process
Peer review process
  • After confirmation by editor in-chief, Associate editor suggests some reviewers and also one chief reviewer for a paper. Then technical editor send the paper for those reviewer.
  • If the reviewer thinks that he/she is unable to provide a review (due to conflict of interest or scheduling problems) she should say it to the technical editor as soon as possible.
  • Finally after completing the review process, technical editor sends the comments of reviewers to the authors.
  • In clicase final decision is made by associate editor and editor in-chief based on the results of the review process. The paper can be accepted, rejected, accepted with minor revision or accepted with major revision.
  • At the end , authors revise their articles and send them back to the technical editor and the review process restarts.
in general
In General

Case reports should show one of the following:

  • Unreported or uncommon adverse effect of medications
  • Rare or uncommon presentation of a disease
  • New teaching issues in the management of a disease
  • Anything about presentation, diagnosis and treatment of a new disease
  • Reporting a new thing about treatment and pathogenesis of a disease
  • Does the title appropriately reflect the case?
  • Is the abstract in the requested format for Clicase?
  • Does the abstract reflect an exact description of the case?
key words
Key words
  • Between three to six keywords based on MeSH terms is necessary.
  • Are key words appropriate?
  • Is there an appropriate introduction to the case report?
  • Is there a comprehensive, relevant and adequate literature review in the introduction?
  • Is the reason for reporting the case understandable?
case presentation
Case Presentation
  • Are the patient’s history and physical examination explained sufficiently?
  • Is there a differential diagnosis?
  • Are the Management of the case and treatment plan provided?
  • Are there details of follow up for the case?
  • Are there initial and follow up photos for the case?
  • Are Study limitations reported and are they reasonable?
  • Is the case and management of that compared with formerly published reports?
  • Is there a comprehensive and sufficient literature review?
  • Is it clear that how this case is different from other previously published cases?
  • Are the details given in the introduction repeated in the discussion?
  • Is there any Suggestions for future studies?
  • Do the conclusions exactly and clearly clarify the main message of the study and highlight the key points learnt from the case ?
  • Are the references in requested format?
  • Is the case report completely referenced? (Is there any point in the case report that needs a reference?)
  • Are the references appropriate and the latest?
final comment
Final comment
  • What is your final comment about this paper?