At the International Journal of Case Reports in Orthopaedics, we see peer review as more than a gatekeeping exercise. Yes, we need to filter out work that isn’t ready for publication — but that’s only part of what we do. We also want to help authors make their manuscripts better.
Orthopaedic case reports serve a unique educational purpose in medicine. They document rare conditions, unusual presentations, and novel treatment approaches that may not be captured in large clinical trials. The cases we publish may guide surgeons facing similar challenges in their practice. That responsibility shapes how we approach every manuscript that comes through our doors.
We’ve designed our review process to be rigorous but constructive. When reviewers identify problems, we expect them to suggest solutions where possible. A good review doesn’t just point out what’s wrong — it helps authors understand how to fix it.
We use a double-blind peer review process. This means authors don’t know who is reviewing their work, and reviewers don’t know whose work they’re reviewing. We remove author names, institutional affiliations, and other identifying details before manuscripts go out for review.
Why do we do this? Because we want manuscripts judged on their merits alone. A case report from a renowned teaching hospital shouldn’t get an easier ride than one from a community practice. A trainee’s work deserves the same fair hearing as an experienced consultant’s. Blinding helps level the playing field.
Of course, blinding isn’t perfect — sometimes reviewers can guess who wrote something based on the case details or surgical approach. But it reduces bias, and that’s worth doing.
We give our reviewers clear guidance on what to assess. Here’s what they’re looking at:
Educational value: Does this case report offer genuine learning points? Will it help orthopaedic surgeons, residents, or allied health professionals in their clinical practice?
Originality: Does the case present something unusual, rare, or previously unreported? This might include an uncommon condition, an atypical presentation, a novel surgical technique, or an unexpected complication and its management.
Clinical description: Is the patient history, examination findings, and clinical course described thoroughly? Are relevant investigations and imaging studies adequately presented?
Treatment approach: Is the surgical technique or conservative management clearly described? Are the decision-making processes and rationale explained?
Follow-up and outcomes: Is the follow-up period adequate? Are functional outcomes and any complications documented appropriately?
Structure: Does the manuscript follow the appropriate case report format with clear sections for introduction, case presentation, discussion, and conclusion?
Images and media: Are radiographs, MRI scans, intraoperative photographs, and other images of sufficient quality? Do they effectively illustrate the key findings?
Discussion quality: Does the discussion place the case in context of existing literature? Are the learning points clearly articulated?
Language and clarity: Is the writing clear and readable? Are references complete and properly formatted?
Patient consent: Has written informed consent been obtained from the patient for publication? Is patient anonymity adequately protected in the manuscript and images?
Conflicts of interest: Are potential conflicts disclosed? This includes relationships with implant manufacturers, funding sources, or other commercial interests.
Institutional approval: Where required, has institutional review board or ethics committee approval been documented?
We select reviewers based on their expertise in the manuscript’s subject area and their track record in research and publication. These are practicing orthopaedic surgeons, sports medicine specialists, trauma surgeons, and academics who understand both the clinical realities and the methodological standards of orthopaedic case reporting.
Our reviewers are external to the editorial board. We believe this independence is important — it prevents any appearance that decisions are made by an insular group.
We typically assign two reviewers to each manuscript. If their assessments diverge significantly, we may seek a third opinion. The final decision rests with the editors, but reviewer input is central to that decision.
This is non-negotiable. Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share them with anyone, discuss their contents, or use any information from them for their own work. The trust authors place in the review system depends on this.
We ask reviewers to flag any conflicts before they begin their assessment. This might include personal relationships with the authors, competitive interests, financial connections, or previous involvement with the case. If a reviewer feels they cannot provide an unbiased evaluation for any reason, they should decline the assignment.
Reviewers who identify a conflict after starting their review should notify us immediately. They’re also welcome to suggest alternative reviewers who might be better suited to evaluate the work.
Authors deserve prompt feedback. We ask reviewers to complete their assessments within the agreed timeframe — typically two to three weeks. If delays are unavoidable, we appreciate early notice so we can make alternative arrangements.
We mentioned earlier that our goal extends beyond simply accepting or rejecting manuscripts. We’re particularly committed to supporting emerging researchers — residents, fellows, and surgeons who may be new to publishing case reports.
Not every interesting case arrives perfectly documented. Sometimes valuable clinical lessons are let down by weak writing or incomplete follow-up. When we see potential, we try to work with authors to realize it. This takes more time and effort than simple rejection, but we think it’s worthwhile.
That said, we have standards, and we maintain them. Supportive doesn’t mean accepting work that isn’t ready. It means giving authors a fair chance to improve.
If you have questions about how peer review works at International Journal of Case Reports in Orthopaedics — whether you’re an author wondering what to expect or a potential reviewer interested in contributing — feel free to contact us at orthocasereports@gmail.com.
International Journal of Case Reports in Orthopaedics
