Journal
Peer review
This policy applies only to journal-track articles. Teaching-archive cases stay under editor review and will not be labeled peer reviewed.
When this starts
External review begins when the ISSN is assigned and at least five board members are seated. Until then we are not calling any article on this site a peer-reviewed journal article.
Model
Single-anonymized review: reviewers see author names; authors do not see reviewer names. The editor-in-chief or a handling editor sees both.
Case reports, procedural reviews, and technical notes get at least two independent reviewers when feasible. Clinical images may use one specialist reviewer plus the handling editor when the teaching point is a single finding.
What reviewers decide
- Clinical accuracy and whether the images support the claim
- Whether patient identity is protected
- Whether the teaching point is useful to a practicing endoscopist
- Whether references are adequate for non-textbook claims
- Whether consent, COI, funding, and off-label use are stated
Reviewers recommend accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. The handling editor makes the decision. Typical first response: 21 days from assignment.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts, images, and reviews are confidential. Reviewers do not share them, use them in their own work, or contact authors directly.
Appeals
Authors may appeal a reject once, in writing to [email protected], stating the factual error in the review. A different editor handles the appeal. We respond within 14 days.
Editor-authored papers
If Klaus or a board member is an author, another editor assigns reviewers and makes the decision. The author-editor does not see reviewer identities for that paper.