Case Report Reviewer Guidelines

Case Report Reviewer Guidelines

Our Dermatology Online publishes clinical case reports and case series that provide clinically relevant, educational, unusual, or otherwise valuable information for dermatology and related fields.

These guidelines provide additional criteria for reviewers evaluating Case Reports, Case Series, and Clinical Images.

Reviewers should use these criteria together with the journal’s general Reviewer Instructions and Peer Review Process.

1. Clinical and Educational Value

The reviewer should first consider whether the case provides sufficient value to the journal’s readership.

A case may be suitable for publication when it presents, for example:

• an unusual or rare clinical presentation;
• an uncommon disease or diagnostic challenge;
• an important differential diagnosis;
• an unusual treatment response or adverse effect;
• a clinically important complication;
• a new or particularly informative observation;
• a useful diagnostic or therapeutic lesson;
• a case that meaningfully contributes to existing medical knowledge.

Rarity alone does not necessarily justify publication.

The reviewer should assess whether the case provides a clear clinical or educational message.

2. Originality and Novelty

Reviewers should consider:

• Is the case sufficiently original?
• Has a substantially similar case already been published?
• Does the report add useful information to the existing literature?
• Is the claimed novelty supported by the literature review?
• Does the manuscript clearly explain what makes the case noteworthy?

Reviewers should avoid requiring novelty where the principal value of the case is a clear and useful clinical lesson.

3. Clinical History

The clinical history should contain sufficient information to understand the case.

Where relevant, reviewers should assess whether the manuscript adequately describes:

• age and relevant demographic characteristics;
• presenting symptoms and duration;
• relevant medical history;
• medications;
• family history;
• relevant exposures;
• previous diagnoses or treatments;
• clinical progression.

Unnecessary patient-identifying information should not be included.

4. Clinical Examination

The physical examination should be described sufficiently to allow readers to understand the clinical presentation.

For dermatological cases, this may include:

• anatomical location;
• distribution;
• number and size of lesions where relevant;
• morphology;
• colour;
• borders;
• surface characteristics;
• associated findings;
• relevant mucosal, nail, hair, or systemic findings.

The description should correspond to the clinical images where images are provided.

5. Diagnostic Evaluation

Reviewers should assess whether the diagnostic process is sufficiently described.

Where applicable, this may include:

• laboratory investigations;
• dermoscopy;
• microbiological studies;
• histopathology;
• immunohistochemistry;
• molecular or genetic investigations;
• imaging;
• other diagnostic procedures.

The reviewer should consider whether the investigations support the diagnosis presented by the authors.

6. Differential Diagnosis

Where clinically appropriate, the manuscript should discuss relevant differential diagnoses.

Reviewers should consider:

• whether important alternatives have been considered;
• whether the authors explain why the final diagnosis was favoured;
• whether clinical, laboratory, dermoscopic, histopathological, or other findings support the distinction.

Reviewers should not require an unnecessarily extensive differential diagnosis when it does not contribute to the clinical message.

7. Diagnosis

The final diagnosis should be clearly stated and supported by the information provided.

Reviewers should consider whether:

• the diagnosis is adequately substantiated;
• the diagnostic criteria are appropriate;
• the findings are internally consistent;
• pathological or other confirmatory evidence is appropriately presented where necessary.

If the diagnosis remains uncertain, the manuscript should not present it as definitively established without adequate justification.

8. Treatment and Clinical Management

Where treatment is part of the case, reviewers should assess whether the manuscript provides sufficient information concerning:

• treatment selected;
• rationale for treatment;
• dose and duration where relevant;
• response to treatment;
• adverse effects;
• treatment changes;
• reasons for discontinuation where applicable.

Treatment claims should be supported by the case information and relevant literature.

9. Follow-Up and Outcome

Where possible and clinically appropriate, the manuscript should report the patient’s outcome.

Reviewers should consider whether the authors provide information concerning:

• clinical response;
• recurrence;
• complications;
• follow-up duration;
• subsequent treatment;
• current status.

If meaningful follow-up is unavailable, the authors should make this limitation clear.

10. Clinical Images and Figures

Clinical photographs, dermoscopic images, histopathological images, and other figures should contribute meaningfully to the case.

Reviewers should assess whether:

• the images are relevant;
• image quality is sufficient;
• the lesion or finding is adequately visible;
• figures are correctly labelled;
• captions are informative;
• the images correspond to the clinical description;
• the presentation is consistent with the diagnosis.

Reviewers should report suspected inappropriate image manipulation confidentially to the editor.

Reviewers should not request additional patient photographs unless they are genuinely necessary for scientific evaluation.

11. Patient Privacy and Anonymisation

Patient confidentiality is a fundamental requirement.

Reviewers should look for potentially identifying information, including:

• patient names;
• initials where identification may be possible;
• medical record numbers;
• exact addresses;
• unnecessary dates;
• identifiable photographs;
• distinctive personal characteristics;
• unusual combinations of demographic and clinical information.

If a patient could reasonably be identified, the reviewer should notify the handling editor confidentially.

Reviewers should not request additional identifying information from the authors.

The journal’s detailed requirements are provided in the Patient Consent and Case Reports policy.

12. Patient Consent for Publication

For case reports and case series containing potentially identifiable patient information or images, reviewers should check whether the manuscript contains an appropriate statement concerning consent for publication.

An appropriate statement may indicate, for example:

Patient Consent: Written informed consent for publication of the clinical details and accompanying images was obtained from the patient.

Where consent was obtained from a parent, legal guardian, or authorised representative, the manuscript should identify this appropriately.

If the consent statement is absent, unclear, or appears inconsistent with the manuscript, the reviewer should raise the matter confidentially with the editor.

Reviewers should not request that patients’ signed consent forms be included in the manuscript.

13. Human and Animal Ethics

Where a case report or case series involves research procedures, additional investigations, or other activities requiring ethical oversight, reviewers should consider whether appropriate ethical information is provided.

Where applicable, reviewers should look for:

• ethics committee approval;
• institutional review board approval;
• relevant reference or approval number;
• informed consent;
• animal ethics approval where applicable.

If it is unclear whether formal ethical approval was required, the reviewer should raise the issue with the editor rather than making assumptions.

14. Literature Review

The discussion should place the case appropriately within the existing literature.

Reviewers should consider whether:

• relevant literature is cited;
• important previous reports are acknowledged;
• the authors accurately describe the similarities and differences between their case and previously published cases;
• conclusions are supported by the cited evidence.

Reviewers should not request citations solely to increase their own citation count.

15. Discussion

The discussion should explain the clinical significance of the case rather than simply repeat the case description.

Reviewers should consider whether the authors:

• explain the important clinical lesson;
• discuss relevant differential diagnoses;
• compare the case with previously reported cases;
• appropriately interpret the findings;
• acknowledge limitations;
• avoid unsupported claims.

16. Conclusion

The conclusion should be concise and supported by the case.

Reviewers should consider whether it:

• reflects the evidence presented;
• communicates the principal clinical lesson;
• avoids exaggerated claims;
• does not imply a level of evidence that cannot be supported by a single case or case series.

Case reports should not make broad treatment or causality claims that are unsupported by the available evidence.

17. CARE Reporting Guidelines

The journal encourages authors to use the CARE guidelines when preparing case reports.

Reviewers may use the CARE framework as an additional aid when assessing the completeness and clarity of a case report.

The reviewer should consider, where applicable:

• patient information;
• clinical findings;
• timeline;
• diagnostic assessment;
• therapeutic intervention;
• follow-up and outcomes;
• patient perspective where available;
• informed consent;
• discussion of relevant medical literature.

Failure to follow every element of a reporting guideline does not automatically require rejection. Reviewers should assess whether any omission materially affects the scientific or clinical value of the report.

18. Case Series

For case series, reviewers should additionally consider:

• whether the inclusion criteria are clearly defined;
• whether the number of cases is appropriate for the stated purpose;
• whether cases are sufficiently characterised;
• whether relevant similarities and differences between cases are described;
• whether outcomes are reported consistently;
• whether the conclusions are appropriate for the size and nature of the series.

Authors should not present findings from a small case series as evidence equivalent to a controlled clinical study.

19. Clinical Images

For manuscripts submitted primarily as Clinical Images, reviewers should consider:

• whether the image has sufficient diagnostic or educational value;
• whether the clinical finding is clearly described;
• whether the diagnosis is adequately supported;
• whether the image quality is sufficient;
• whether the caption provides useful information;
• whether patient privacy and consent requirements have been satisfied.

The manuscript should avoid unnecessary clinical history that does not contribute to understanding the image.

20. Plagiarism and Duplicate Publication

Reviewers should report suspected:

• plagiarism;
• substantial text reuse;
• duplicate publication;
• redundant publication;
• undisclosed use of previously published images;
• substantially overlapping case reports.

The journal uses Plagramme as part of its similarity and plagiarism-screening process.

Automated similarity results should not be treated as conclusive evidence of misconduct.

Reviewers should report substantive concerns confidentially to the editor.

21. Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must not upload confidential case reports, patient information, clinical photographs, unpublished data, or manuscript text to external generative AI systems for the purpose of conducting the review.

AI-generated review reports should not replace the reviewer’s independent expert assessment.

Any use of automated tools must comply with the journal’s AI Policy and must not compromise manuscript confidentiality or patient privacy.

22. Recommendation

After completing the assessment, the reviewer should provide an overall recommendation to the editor.

Possible recommendations include:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

The recommendation should be consistent with the reviewer’s comments.

The reviewer should explain the principal reasons for the recommendation and identify the most important issues that need to be addressed.

The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or appropriately designated editor.

23. Confidentiality of the Review

All information concerning the submitted case report must remain confidential.

Reviewers must not:

• contact the patient;
• contact the authors directly;
• share the manuscript;
• share clinical photographs;
• disclose unpublished information;
• discuss the manuscript with third parties;
• use information from the manuscript for personal or professional advantage.

Any concern regarding ethics, patient privacy, plagiarism, or research integrity should be communicated confidentially to the handling editor.

24. Reviewer Checklist

Before submitting a review, reviewers should consider:

Scientific quality

•  Is the case clinically relevant or educationally valuable?
•  Is the diagnosis adequately supported?
• Is the clinical history sufficiently described?
• Are the investigations appropriate?
• Is the differential diagnosis adequately addressed?
• Are treatment and outcome sufficiently described?
• Is the discussion supported by relevant literature?
• Are the conclusions appropriate?

Patient protection

• Has unnecessary identifying information been removed?
• Are clinical images appropriately presented?
• Is an appropriate patient-consent statement provided where required?
• Are there any concerns regarding patient privacy?

Ethics and integrity

• Is appropriate ethics information provided where applicable?
• Are there concerns regarding plagiarism or duplicate publication?
• Are there concerns regarding image or data manipulation?
• Are there potential conflicts of interest?

Overall assessment

• Does the manuscript provide a clear clinical or educational message?
• Are the necessary revisions clearly identified?
• Is the recommendation consistent with the review comments?

25. Contact

Questions concerning the review of Case Reports, Case Series, or Clinical Images should be directed to the editorial office:

contact@odermatol.com

Reviewers should use the confidential communication facilities provided by the journal’s editorial system whenever available.

Related Policies

• Reviewer Instructions
• Peer Review Process
• Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
• AI Policy
• Patient Consent and Case Reports
• Corrections and Retractions
• Complaints and Appeals