Search Submit
Close

Navigating the Evolution of Clinical Case Reports: Challenges and Innovations in Contemporary Medical Publishing

International Microsurgery Journal. 2023;7(1):5
DOI: 10.24983/scitemed.imj.2023.00178
Article Type: Perspective, Opinion, or Commentary

Abstract

Clinical case reports have been an integral part of medical literature, providing valuable insights from clinical practice. However, their acceptance in academic journals is declining due to various factors. This article explores the challenges, views, and potential solutions regarding the publication of case reports. Primarily, scientific journals prioritize original research and systematic reviews over case reports due to their potential for broader impact and generalizability. Case reports, often detailing unique or rare instances, may not align with the current research focus on quantifiable data and statistically significant findings. Furthermore, journals face pressure to maintain high impact factors, a metric where case reports typically score lower due to their specific and often less-cited nature. Space limitations in print journals and a preference for large-scale studies also contribute to the declining publication of case reports. The increase in submission volumes and the shift towards digital platforms present both challenges and opportunities for the publication of case reports. Quality control issues, due to the specific nature of case reports, create challenges in peer review processes. Financial considerations also play a role, as case reports may not attract the same level of funding or readership as larger studies. Despite these challenges, case reports remain crucial for medical education and for highlighting clinical anomalies or innovative treatments. The article proposes solutions such as establishing dedicated sections or journals specifically for case reports, adopting alternative metrics to evaluate their impact, and exploring innovative funding models. A balance between qualitative and quantitative research is encouraged, with a comprehensive publication strategy that values diverse methodologies. Case reports necessitate meticulous selection, structured presentation, and adherence to ethical considerations, including obtaining patient consent. The conclusion emphasizes the need for flexible and adaptive publishing strategies that recognize the value of case reports in advancing medical knowledge, while addressing practical and editorial challenges.

Keywords

  • Case reports; ethics in publishing; financial challenges; impact factor; publishing trends; selective publication; space constraints; information dissemination

Introduction

Clinical case reports have been an essential medium for disseminating medical knowledge since the inception of medicine itself. Tracing back to Hippocrates' era and perhaps even to ancient Egyptian medical writings, these reports have played a pivotal role in the medical literature [1]. They are instrumental in sharing clinical experiences and bringing to light significant scientific findings that could be missed in clinical trials. A notable example is James Parkinson's 1817 description of "shaking palsy," which was crucial in recognizing Parkinson's disease [2]. Similarly, the early observation of Kaposi's sarcoma in a young homosexual man significantly contributed to the discovery of acquired immune deficiency syndrome [3]. Moreover, case reports have played a critical role in identifying adverse effects. A significant case is the identification of a link between fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine with primary pulmonary hypertension. Originating from case reports, this discovery led to more in-depth research and eventually caused the withdrawal of these drugs from the market [4,5].

The purpose of case reports is to record on paper new findings gathered during clinical practice and disseminate the information to those in the medical profession. Case reports can be on a variety of topics. They could be reporting from a previously unknown symptom or new complications for a known disease to information on a new side effect for a common medical procedure or a new type of therapy for a common disease. Generally, the content in case reports usually contain descriptions of the symptoms, diagnostic procedures, and details on treatment [6,7].

Case reports offer numerous benefits. Firstly, they provide readily accessible information. Contrasting with the complex methodologies and extensive data verification processes typical of scientific research, the data in case reports originate directly from clinical practice. Daily clinical operations and outpatient visits yield first-hand, unprocessed data. When clinicians are meticulous and observant, this data can be effectively compiled into case reports, identifying instances worthy of documentation. Significantly, case reports exert a substantial influence on subsequent medical literature and potentially on clinical practice, with many prompting further clinical trials [8].

Challenges and Solutions

In the current digital era, characterized by the proliferation of paperless journals, case reports are witnessing a resurgence, particularly within open-access platforms [6,9,10]. However, a contrasting trend is evident in traditional academic journals, where case studies are often positioned at a lower tier in the study design hierarchy, coupled with an increasing reluctance to accept such submissions [11–13]. This shift, observable across various academic disciplines, is influenced by a multifaceted array of factors.

The upcoming analysis aims to dissect and elucidate eight key elements that are catalyzing this shift in academic publishing paradigms. It is imperative to recognize and understand the multifaceted nature of this phenomenon. The publication of case reports, historically a staple in academic discourse, now confronts a maze of challenges and diverging viewpoints.

A comprehensive and critical assessment of these underlying factors is vital. Such an evaluation will not only reveal the nuanced intricacies that govern the publication of case reports in contemporary scholarly journals but also propose a holistic approach to decipher and effectively navigate these complexities. This endeavor is crucial for academicians and publishers alike, seeking to understand and adapt to the evolving landscape of academic publishing in the digital age.

Focus on Original Research
In the dynamic landscape of scientific publication, there is a growing emphasis on research that offers broad, generalizable insights, often leading to a preference for original research and systematic reviews. These types of studies are favored for their potential to significantly enhance the collective knowledge base in various fields. Conversely, case reports, which typically focus on unique or rare occurrences in individual patients or unusual clinical presentations, face challenges in garnering similar interest due to their limited scope and narrower applicability [11].

Despite this, the unique nature of case reports is indispensable in medical literature. They frequently shed light on rare conditions and novel treatment methods, sparking further research and innovation [13,14]. The American Medical Association, marking its 150th anniversary in 1985, selected and reissued 51 groundbreaking papers from the Journal of the American Medical Association. These papers were pivotal in transforming both medical science and clinical practice. Notably, five of these seminal publications were case reports [15].

To address this contrast, it is proposed to establish dedicated sections in journals specifically for case reports. These sections would highlight the most educationally impactful and innovative cases. The aim of introducing dedicated sections or special editions for case reports is not to create a hierarchy but to acknowledge the importance of these contributions. This approach would ensure that these valuable insights are given appropriate attention, while seamlessly integrating with other research. Furthermore, the idea of special editions or forming partnerships with platforms focusing on case studies is recommended. This would ensure that these crucial contributions are not overlooked, striking a balance between general applicability and the recognition of rare, yet essential insights.

It is notable that the qualities of case reports act as a double-edged sword. Predominantly focusing on outlier cases, they risk diverting attention and resources from more prevalent medical conditions affecting the broader population. However, such a diversion is not inevitable. Case reports often lay the groundwork for new research directions and spur innovation. By acting as catalysts, they ignite curiosity and promote further inquiry, potentially benefiting a wide range of medical conditions, from outliers to those more common.

Impact Factor Concerns
The impact factor of a journal is a measurable indicator of its significance in the academic world. It calculates the average number of times articles from a specific journal, published over a two-year span, are cited by other academic papers and scholarly publications in the subsequent third year. Case reports typically garner fewer citations than other types of research articles, such as original research or reviews [6,16]. This phenomenon stems from the inherently focused and unique nature of case reports, which often limits their appeal to a broader academic audience. Consequently, journals might opt not to publish them, aiming instead to bolster or maintain their impact factor. An increase in the impact factor of a journal not only amplifies its prestige but also serves as a magnet for higher-quality submissions, thereby enhancing its visibility and stature in the academic landscape.

While case reports are typically cited less frequently than other forms of research articles, notable exceptions exist [6,16]. Furthermore, the number of citations an article receives does not always reflect the extent of its readership or the degree to which its findings have been disseminated in the mainstream media [6]. Solely relying on citation metrics, such as impact factor, to evaluate the significance of academic articles can be myopic. Case reports are vital in medical education and in identifying clinical anomalies or innovative treatments. Their contribution to inspiring new research directions and informing clinical practice cannot be fully appreciated through traditional citation metrics.

To embrace a broader view of value in scientific communication and diminish the influence of impact factors, efforts have emerged to introduce alternative metrics that evaluate the educational impact, clinical relevance, and inspirational value of case reports. These could include measures of readership engagement, educational usage, and citations in clinical guidelines or policy documents. Recognizing that metrics are diverse and complex, Nature journals have started incorporating a range of citation-based metrics in addition to impact factors; similarly, the American Society for Microbiology journals have ceased to highlight impact factors on their websites [6]. Journals could also survey clinicians and educators on the utility of case reports in their practice and teaching. By diversifying evaluation criteria, the academic community can more holistically assess the value of case reports beyond just citation counts. Research databases indexed by Medicine/National Institutes of Health are frequently curated to maintain the quality of the publications they include [6]. This underscores the importance of prioritizing the improvement of the content quality in case reports rather than solely emphasizing the impact factor.

Critics may suggest that although metrics such as readership engagement and educational application provide a broader perspective, they might not adequately quantify the direct effects of case reports on patient care and scientific advancement. These indicators, however, are crucial for illuminating the practical impact of case reports in clinical practice and medical education, areas often neglected in citation-based assessments. By integrating these varied metrics with traditional citation counts, a more thorough evaluation of case reports is achieved, acknowledging their extensive influence in the scientific and medical realms.

Space Limitations
Traditional print journals have finite space for publishing articles, making the selection process highly competitive. Even in the digital realm, there is a premium on the amount of content that can be effectively managed and presented. Case reports, while valuable, often provide insights into singular events or observations and may not be as impactful as larger studies or comprehensive reviews. Therefore, journals might prioritize research that contributes more substantially to the field, offering broader insights or conclusive findings over the detailed description of a single case, regardless of its uniqueness or educational value [17].

The transition to digital publishing presents an opportunity to reconsider the limitations traditionally associated with print media, such as space constraints. Traditional print journals can effectively leverage digital platforms to incorporate case reports, offering select articles exclusively online. This digital approach facilitates the publication of a greater volume of research than is feasible within the confines of a print edition. Importantly, it expedites the dissemination of findings, a crucial element in dynamic fields like medicine and science. Furthermore, digital platforms enable the inclusion of multimedia elements, such as videos, audio commentary, and interactive figures in articles, thereby significantly enriching the academic content and enhancing reader engagement and comprehension. In conclusion, digital platforms can accommodate a much larger body of content, including case reports, without the physical limitations of print journals. Thus, the exclusion of case reports due to space constraints is less justifiable in the digital age.

Preference for Large-Scale Studies
There is an increasing trend in the scientific community towards valuing large-scale studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses over case reports. These types of studies are often seen as more scientifically robust, providing stronger evidence through larger sample sizes and comprehensive analyses. They also offer broader insights and generalizable findings that can significantly influence practice and policy. In contrast, case reports, which typically describe individual or rare instances, may not provide enough evidence to influence broader clinical or research practices [18]. This shift in preference reflects a broader trend in scientific research towards prioritizing studies that can offer more substantial and wide-reaching conclusions.

While large-scale studies are important for establishing generalizable findings, case reports offer depth and context to these findings. They provide real-world examples of how broader trends manifest in individual patients and can reveal exceptions that challenge or refine existing knowledge [19]. Excluding case reports creates a gap in the academic record, where the nuanced and human aspects of medicine may be overlooked.

Journals are advised to publish case reports and larger studies concurrently, offering a more holistic perspective on medical research. Journals may establish specialized issues or sections that showcase case reports relevant to the subjects of recent extensive studies. This approach not only enriches the academic discourse but also helps in bridging the gap between theoretical research and clinical practice. Additionally, journals might prompt authors of large-scale studies to cite pertinent case reports as exceptional instances, effectively merging the in-depth insights of individual cases with wider research trends.

Promoting the inclusion of case reports in broader studies is beneficial, but safeguarding against selective and biased case selection is crucial. Journals should formulate guidelines for authors, underscoring the need for objective citation of relevant case reports, irrespective of whether they corroborate or contradict the study's results. Ensuring transparency in the citation process with explicit justifications for each inclusion can help mitigate bias. Additionally, peer reviewers and editors ought to meticulously examine the selection of case reports during the review phase. The involvement of independent experts, especially in instances of suspected bias, adds another layer of impartiality. Through strict editorial oversight and adherence to ethical citation practices, journals can achieve a harmonious balance between the contributions of case reports and larger studies, thereby preserving the integrity of research.

Quality Control Issues
The peer review process is fundamental in ensuring the quality and credibility of published research. However, the unique and often highly specific nature of case reports can make it challenging to find suitable peer reviewers who are experts in the scenario described. Unlike more standardized research articles, case reports may lack certain benchmarks and criteria typically used in the review process, such as statistical analysis or methodological rigor common in larger studies. This can lead to challenges in assessing the quality and reliability of these reports, making them less attractive to journals that aim to maintain high academic and scientific standards [20].

Nevertheless, the unique nature of case reports should not be seen as a barrier but as an opportunity to diversify and specialize the peer review process. Specialized review for case reports acknowledges their value and ensures they are assessed by appropriate criteria, rather than being judged by standards more suited to other types of research.

To resolve the challenges, journals could implement a specialized peer review system for case reports, engaging experts versed in this format. There is a concern that a distinct review process might marginalize case reports within wider academic discussions. However, the primary objective of such a system should be to elevate the recognition and quality of case reports, not to segregate them. This specialized review mechanism is intended to supplement, rather than supplant, the conventional peer review process. Maintaining the impartiality of specialized reviewers is essential. Clear selection criteria and measures to avoid conflicts of interest are crucial. Additionally, rotating specialized reviewers and ensuring a breadth of expertise are strategies that can further reduce the likelihood of bias.

Training programs or guidelines can be established to assist reviewers in assessing the quality and relevance of case reports. This could include evaluating the uniqueness of the case, the clarity of presentation, and the ethical aspects, such as patient consent and privacy. Establishing a dedicated editorial board or a review panel specializing in case reports can ensure that these submissions are evaluated fairly and constructively, enhancing their quality and impact.

The feasibility of journals investing in specialized training for reviewers, considering their existing substantial workload, is debatable. This situation could lead publishers to face difficulties in resource allocation and persuading reviewers to participate in training initiatives. To mitigate these issues, publishers can employ a variety of strategies. These might involve the allocation of specific resources, collaboration with subject matter experts, and the introduction of adaptable, optional training modules. Recognizing the efforts of reviewers and underscoring the training's benefits, such as enhanced peer review effectiveness, can encourage engagement. A phased approach and clear articulation of the program's merits are crucial for gaining reviewer support. Tailoring the program based on feedback underscores a commitment to improving the reviewer experience. Additionally, publishers could establish mentoring and peer support networks to cultivate a community among reviewers. In essence, motivating reviewers to undertake training entails offering incentives, acknowledging their critical role, and ensuring program adaptability, while continually refining the initiative to serve both the reviewers and the integrity of scholarly publication.

Increased Volume of Submissions
The rapid expansion of the scientific community has led to an increased number of submissions to academic journals. This surge challenges journals in efficiently managing and reviewing these submissions. Consequently, many journals have revised their selection criteria, showing a preference for articles with broader impacts, like extensive studies or thorough reviews, rather than more specialized case reports. Such strategic selectivity is designed to preserve the journal's quality and relevance in the densely populated field of academic publishing.

While journals face an increasing volume of submissions, selectively excluding case reports can lead to a homogenization of published content, where only certain types of research are valued. This not only limits the scope of academic discourse but also potentially overlooks important clinical observations and innovations presented in case reports.

Therefore, it is crucial for journals to implement a selective strategy that prioritizes the publication of high-quality, clinically relevant case reports. This could involve setting specific criteria for case report submissions, such as requiring them to demonstrate exceptional educational value, describe novel treatments or pathologies, or provide significant insights into clinical practice. 

Additionally, journals could allocate a fixed percentage of their publication space to case reports, ensuring a balanced representation of different types of research. This approach would maintain the diversity of academic content while managing the volume of submissions effectively. In considering the allocation of publication space to case reports, publishers may identify inflexibility as a potential issue with setting a fixed percentage. To address this, journals could adopt a dynamic approach that allows for adjustments based on the volume and quality of submissions. This approach offers a range of flexibility within the predetermined percentage, enabling journals to adapt to the actual quantity and quality of the received submissions. Implementing such a strategy provides the necessary leeway to modify the space allocated to case reports in response to the real-time influx and standard of submissions. Ultimately, this method empowers journals to achieve a balanced presentation of diverse case reports while upholding high editorial standards, accommodating variations in the quantity and quality of submissions over time.

Shift in Research Focus
The focus of scientific research is continually evolving, often shifting towards studies that provide quantifiable and statistically significant data. These studies are perceived as offering more robust and conclusive insights compared to anecdotal or single-case studies. As a result, journals may align their publication strategies with these research trends, favoring articles that contribute to the development of evidence-based practices and policies. Case reports, while valuable in highlighting unique or rare cases, may not fit into this paradigm of research that emphasizes reproducibility and generalizability [18]. The shift in research methodologies increasingly favors approaches that yield broadly relevant, statistically validated results, aligning with the scientific community's emphasis on empirical rigor and generalizability.

However, some scholars question this prevailing focus on statistical significance, warning that it could lead to misconstrued interpretations and might not comprehensively represent the scientific value of a study. This conversation highlights the complex nature of ascertaining research's value and impact [21]. Moreover, an excessive concentration on quantitative analysis risks marginalizing the intricate insights that qualitative research, including case studies, can offer. These studies, essential to a diverse research ecosystem, significantly enhance our understanding of medical conditions and treatments with their detailed narrative accounts.

Journals may consider implementing a comprehensive publication strategy that acknowledges the importance of both qualitative and quantitative research. This could involve setting editorial policies that ensure a diverse mix of article types, including case reports. Journals could also foster interdisciplinary collaborations where case reports are integrated with larger studies, highlighting their complementary nature. Promoting a culture that values diverse methodologies and perspectives in research can enrich the academic discourse and lead to a more comprehensive understanding of medical science.

Financial Considerations
Not all journals rely on author publication fees for their operations. Some benefit from alternative funding methods, such as institutional subsidies or subscription-based revenue [22]. However, the majority typically operate on the author fee model, posing a significant financial consideration. This situation is particularly challenging for case reports, which may not attract as much funding or sponsorship as larger research studies due to their unique and highly specialized nature. As a result, they might not appeal to a broad readership, leading to lower citation rates and, subsequently, lesser financial returns for the journal.

Despite these challenges, it is crucial not to overlook case reports solely because of financial considerations. These reports make a unique contribution to the field of medical knowledge and practice. Journals are advised to explore innovative funding models that support the sustainable publication of case reports. Such models would enable the continuous inclusion of these invaluable reports in scientific literature, ensuring that essential medical insights and discoveries are not neglected due to financial constraints.

In exploring alternative funding models for case report publication, journals may consider the implementation of a tiered fee structure. This approach would involve varying charges based on several factors, including the type of article, the economic conditions of the authors' home countries, and the financial situations of the authors themselves. This nuanced strategy acknowledges the diverse economic circumstances that researchers face globally and aims to strike a balance between equity and financial sustainability. Additionally, there is potential value in seeking sponsorships and grants specifically earmarked for case report publication. Collaborations with medical institutions or societies that prioritize the dissemination of case reports could also serve as valuable funding sources. Furthermore, forging partnerships with educational institutions where case reports are employed as educational tools could provide financial support while simultaneously enhancing the educational impact of these publications.

Implementing a tiered fee structure for case report publication does indeed raise concerns regarding equity, potentially favoring researchers from more economically advantaged regions. However, when executed thoughtfully, this model has the potential to enhance inclusivity and accessibility across a broad range of economic backgrounds. A pivotal element of this approach involves adjusting fees in alignment with the World Bank's economic classifications, thereby making publication more affordable for researchers from lower-income countries. In addition, the establishment of a robust waiver and discount policy is essential to ensure that researchers with limited financial resources can still disseminate their work. This necessitates the implementation of a transparent and equitable application process for fee reductions. Furthermore, fostering partnerships with academic and non-profit organizations can help create a subsidy pool, which can be instrumental in supporting researchers facing financial constraints. These strategies not only serve to mitigate inequities but also contribute to the development of a more inclusive scholarly environment. Consequently, while valid concerns about equity exist, the careful implementation of a tiered fee model can successfully strike a balance between open access and financial realities, ultimately benefiting the global research community.

Key Insights for Mastering Case Reports

The creation of a case report in medical literature necessitates thoughtful consideration and a structured presentation. This process commences with the selection of a pertinent topic, a task requiring constant vigilance from medical students and professionals. These individuals must be vigilant in identifying rare or interesting cases, though locating a reportable case that justifies in-depth research presents a challenge. Key attributes of a well-written case report include coherence, succinctness, and the ability to engage the reader. Typically, these reports explore a range of topics, such as rare discoveries, adverse reactions to treatments, misdiagnoses due to symptom overlap with other diseases, new theoretical insights, challenges to established theories or practices, and significant treatment impacts made by the author.

The effectiveness and clarity of a case report hinge on its structured format. The construction of a case report begins with an abstract, providing a summary, typically under 150 words. This segment introduces the case, delineates treatments, and summarizes medical findings. Subsequently, the introduction offers a literature review connecting the case to existing medical theories and accentuating pertinent issues and challenges, culminating in a succinct description of the patient's condition. The case report section, forming the document's core, details the patient's medical history, examination results, treatments, expected and actual outcomes, emphasizing focused and relevant information. The discussion, a crucial part of the report, builds upon the introduction, elucidating the case's significance, the issues it resolves, and its relevance to the broader medical field. This section also evaluates whether the case supports or refutes current medical theories and its implications for future clinical practice. The conclusion articulates the author's evaluations and findings, highlighting the report's key points and possibly offering recommendations for clinical practice, educators, and researchers. Some journals may amalgamate the discussion and conclusion into one cohesive section.

Ethical considerations, including obtaining consent and safeguarding patient anonymity, play a pivotal role throughout this process. Authors should commence report writing only after securing signed consent forms from patients or their guardians, as applicable. Navigating the intricate landscape of ethical considerations and consent challenges in medical literature requires a deep understanding of various legal frameworks, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the United States, as well as other region-specific regulations. To effectively manage this complex legal environment, medical literature should establish clear ethical guidelines and consent protocols that align with the legal requirements of the relevant jurisdiction. This approach enables journals to strike a responsible balance between adhering to ethical and legal mandates while disseminating crucial clinical information that advances patient care and medical research.

It is imperative to acknowledge the variability in formatting standards among different journals. Therefore, authors must familiarize themselves with the precise formatting instructions specified by their intended publication. With these essential elements duly addressed, a well-structured case report holds the potential to make substantial contributions to the realm of medicine by offering valuable insights and serving as a compass for future research and clinical practice.

Conclusion

When evaluating case report submissions for journal publication, it is essential to strike a judicious balance between recognizing their importance in enhancing medical knowledge and addressing the inherent limitations of the publishing process. The application of innovative and adaptable editorial methods is crucial in achieving this balance. These strategies enable the smooth integration of case reports into journals, effectively overcoming both practical and editorial challenges.

References

  1. Wang YX. Advance modern medicine with clinical case reports. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2014;4(6):439–443. [View Article]
  2. Goetz CG. The history of Parkinson's disease: Early clinical descriptions and neurological therapies. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 2011;1(1):a008862. [View Article]
  3. Gottlieb GJ, Ragaz A, Vogel JV, et al. A preliminary communication on extensively disseminated Kaposi's sarcoma in young homosexual men. Am J Dermatopathol 1981;3(2):111–114. [View Article]
  4. Douglas JG, Munro JF, Kitchin AH, Muir AL, Proudfoot AT. Pulmonary hypertension and fenfluramine. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1981;283(6296):881–883. [View Article]
  5. Atanassoff PG, Weiss BM, Schmid ER, Tornic M. Pulmonary hypertension and dexfenfluramine. Lancet 1992;339(8790):436–437. [View Article]
  6. Rison RA, Shepphird JK, Kidd MR. How to choose the best journal for your case report. J Med Case Rep 2017;11(1):198. [View Article]
  7. Rison RA. A guide to writing case reports for the Journal of Medical Case Reports and Biomed Central Research Notes. J Med Case Rep 2013;7:239. [View Article]
  8. Albrecht J, Meves A, Bigby M. Case reports and case series from Lancet had significant impact on medical literature. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58(12):1227–1232. [View Article]
  9. Rison RA, Shepphird JK, Beydoun SR. When to write a neurology case report. J Med Case Rep 2016;10:92. [View Article]
  10. Akers KG. New journals for publishing medical case reports. J Med Libr Assoc 2016;104(2):146–149. [View Article]
  11. McAdam AJ. An obituary for the case report in Journal of Clinical Microbiology. J Clin Microbiol 2015;53(8):2396–2397. [View Article]
  12. Kusters JG, Hall RH. Case reports may be declared dead by the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, but they are alive and well in JMM case reports. J Clin Microbiol 2016;54(2):502. [View Article]
  13. Carey JC. The importance of case reports in advancing scientific knowledge of rare diseases. Adv Exp Med Biol 2010;686:77–86. [View Article]
  14. Florek AG, Dellavalle RP. Case reports in medical education: A platform for training medical students, residents, and fellows in scientific writing and critical thinking. J Med Case Rep 2016;10:86. [View Article]
  15. Abu Kasim N, Abdullah B, Manikam J. The current status of the case report: Terminal or viable? Biomed Imaging Interv J 2009;5(1):e4. [View Article]
  16. Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JP. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA 2005;293(19):2362–2366. [View Article]
  17. Ludwick R, Glazer G. Electronic publishing: The movement from print to digital publication. Online J Issues Nurs 2000;5(1):2. [View Article]
  18. Bolton J. Evidence-based case reports. J Can Chiropr Assoc 2014;58(1):6–7. [View Article]
  19. Vandenbroucke JP. Case reports in an evidence-based world. J R Soc Med 1999;92(4):159–163. [View Article]
  20. Kuo CL. Peer review for academic research. Arch otorhinolaryngol head neck surg 2022;6(1):2. [View Article]
  21. Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B. Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature 2019;567(7748):305–307. [View Article]
  22. Van Noorden R. Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature 2013;495(7442):426–429. [View Article]

Editorial Information

Publication History

Received date: November 15, 2023
Accepted date: December 26, 2023
Published date: December 26, 2023

Disclosure

The manuscript has not been presented or discussed at any scientific meetings, conferences, or seminars related to the topic of the research.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

The study adheres to the ethical principles outlined in the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent revisions, or other equivalent ethical standards that may be applicable. These ethical standards govern the use of human subjects in research and ensure that the study is conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. The researchers have taken extensive care to ensure that the study complies with all ethical standards and guidelines to protect the well-being and privacy of the participants.

Funding

The authors of this research wish to declare that the study was conducted without the support of any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors conducted the study solely with their own resources, without any external financial assistance. The lack of financial support from external sources does not in any way impact the integrity or quality of the research presented in this article. The authors have ensured that the study was conducted according to the highest ethical and scientific standards.

Conflict of Interest

In accordance with the ethical standards set forth by the SciTeMed publishing group for the publication of high-quality scientific research, the author(s) of this article declare that there are no financial or other conflicts of interest that could potentially impact the integrity of the research presented. Additionally, the author(s) affirm that this work is solely the intellectual property of the author(s), and no other individuals or entities have substantially contributed to its content or findings.

Publisher Disclaimer

It is imperative to acknowledge that the opinions and statements articulated in this article are the exclusive responsibility of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of their affiliated institutions, the publishing house, editors, or other reviewers. Furthermore, the publisher does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any statements made by the manufacturer(s) or author(s). These disclaimers emphasize the importance of respecting the author(s)' autonomy and the ability to express their own opinions regarding the subject matter, as well as those readers should exercise their own discretion in understanding the information provided. The position of the author(s) as well as their level of expertise in the subject area must be discerned, while also exercising critical thinking skills in order to arrive at an independent conclusion. As such, it is essential to approach the information in this article with an open mind and a discerning outlook.

Copyright

© 2023 The Author(s). The article presented here is openly accessible under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY). This license grants the right for the material to be used, distributed, and reproduced in any way by anyone, provided that the original author(s), copyright holder(s), and the journal of publication are properly credited and cited as the source of the material. We follow accepted academic practices to ensure that proper credit is given to the original authors and the copyright holder(s), and that the original publication in this journal is cited accurately. Any use, distribution, or reproduction of the material must be consistent with the terms and conditions of the CC-BY license, and must not be compiled, distributed, or reproduced in a manner that is inconsistent with these terms and conditions. We encourage the use and dissemination of this material in a manner that respects and acknowledges the intellectual property rights of the original author(s) and copyright holder(s), and the importance of proper citation and attribution in academic publishing.

  1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
  2. Institute of Brain Science, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
  3. Department of Otolaryngology, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
  1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
  2. Institute of Brain Science, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
  3. Department of Otolaryngology, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
    Email: drkuochinlung@gmail.com
    Address: No.201, Sec. 2, Shipai Rd., Beitou District, 11217 Taipei City, Taiwan

Reviewer 1 Comments

The article comprehensively explores the enduring significance of medical case reports in advancing clinical knowledge. It effectively highlights their historical contributions and the current challenges they face in academic publishing, such as impact factor concerns and a preference for large-scale studies. The article proposes practical solutions, including dedicated sections for case reports and alternative funding models, to ensure their continued inclusion in medical literature. Overall, it offers valuable insights into the vital role of case reports and merits publication with consideration of suggested enhancements.

  1. While case reports undeniably serve a valuable purpose in highlighting rare conditions and innovative treatments, one might argue that their unique nature can also be a double-edged sword. Their focus on outliers may divert resources and attention away from more common medical issues that affect a larger population.
    ResponseI appreciate your thoughtful remarks. While case reports undeniably serve a valuable purpose in highlighting rare conditions and innovative treatments, it's crucial to acknowledge their unique and complementary role in the realm of medical literature. Rather than diverting resources, case reports often lead to new avenues of research and foster innovation. They act as catalysts, sparking curiosity and inspiring further exploration, which can benefit both rare and common medical conditions. I have revised the manuscript, incorporating your feedback as indicated in red.
     
  2. While it's true that case reports may not receive as many citations as other research articles, it's essential to consider whether alternative metrics alone can adequately capture their true value. Critics might argue that while alternative metrics like readership engagement and educational usage can provide a more holistic view, they may still not address the fundamental issue of whether case reports lead to tangible improvements in patient care or scientific knowledge.
    ResponseI appreciate your thoughtful and perceptive remarks. Indeed, case reports often don't garner as many citations as other research articles, but it's crucial to recognize that alternative metrics offer a more comprehensive perspective. While critics contend that these metrics may not directly assess tangible impacts on patient care or scientific knowledge, they do provide valuable insights. Reader engagement and educational usage metrics can reveal the practical utility of case reports in shaping clinical practice and medical education, aspects that traditional citation-based metrics may overlook. Thus, these alternative measures, when used in conjunction with traditional citation counts, offer a more well-rounded evaluation of case reports, appreciating their significance beyond mere citation numbers. I have integrated your feedback into the manuscript, denoting the modifications with red markings.
     
  3. While proposing specialized peer review for case reports seems like a constructive approach, one might argue that this could inadvertently lead to the segregation of case reports from mainstream research. Could establishing a separate review process risk isolating case reports and downplaying their significance in the broader academic discourse?
    ResponseYour insightful comments are valued. While proposing specialized peer review for case reports indeed offers advantages, it's essential to address concerns about potential segregation. To mitigate this risk, the goal should be to enhance the recognition and quality of case reports rather than isolating them. The specialized review process should aim to complement, not replace, the existing peer review system. I have integrated your input into the manuscript, indicating the revisions using red markings.
     
  4. Training programs and guidelines for case report reviewers are valuable, but they raise questions about the resources and time required for implementation. Is it practical for journals to invest in such specialized training for reviewers, especially considering the already demanding workload of peer reviewers? Would this additional layer of specialization for case reports create an imbalance in the review process for different types of research articles? How can the publisher allocate resources and convince reviewers to embrace the training program?
    ResponseYour insightful remarks contribute greatly, enriching our discussion and broadening our understanding. Training and guidelines for case report reviewers are valuable investments in research quality. The workload concern is valid, but specialized training can be a phased approach, gradually integrated to ensure feasibility and maintain balance in the review process. Ultimately, the aim is to improve the overall quality of peer review, benefiting all types of research articles. To address the concerns about implementing training programs for reviewers and persuading them to participate, publishers can take several steps. Publishers can implement reviewer training by allocating resources, collaborating with experts, and offering flexible, voluntary programs. Recognizing reviewers' contributions and emphasizing training benefits, like enhanced peer review quality, can encourage participation. Gradual integration and transparent communication about program advantages help gain reviewer acceptance. Feedback-driven improvements demonstrate a commitment to enhancing the reviewer experience. Publishers should also consider mentoring and peer support networks to build a sense of community. In sum, persuading reviewers to embrace training involves providing incentives, acknowledging their importance, and ensuring flexibility while continuously refining the program to benefit both reviewers and the quality of published research. I have integrated your feedback into the manuscript and indicated the alterations using red markings.
     
  5. While advocating for innovative funding models to sustain case report publication is essential, some may argue that implementing a tiered fee structure could raise concerns about equity. Could such a system inadvertently favor researchers from wealthier countries or institutions while imposing a disproportionate burden on those from poor backgrounds? How can journals ensure that this approach remains fair and accessible to all researchers, regardless of their financial circumstances?
    ResponseYour insightful remarks are appreciated. Addressing the reviewer's concern, implementing a tiered fee structure for case report publication indeed raises questions of equity, primarily favoring researchers from affluent regions. However, this model, when thoughtfully executed, can enhance inclusivity and access across diverse economic backgrounds. A key aspect is adjusting fees based on the World Bank's economic classifications, making publication more affordable for those from lower-income countries. Further, a robust waiver and discount policy is essential, ensuring those with limited funding can still publish their work. This requires a clear, fair application process for fee reductions. Additionally, forging partnerships with academic and non-profit organizations can create a subsidy pool, aiding under-resourced researchers. Such strategies can not only mitigate inequities but also foster a more inclusive scholarly environment. Hence, while equity concerns are valid, a carefully implemented tiered fee model can balance open access with financial realities, benefiting the global research community. I have integrated your valuable feedback into the manuscript, meticulously marking the changes in red for clarity.

Reviewer 2 Comments

The article offers a comprehensive and insightful exploration of the evolving role of clinical case reports in the medical literature. Tracing their historical significance from Hippocrates to the modern era, the article delves into the vital contributions these reports have made in shaping medical understanding and practice. The nuanced discussion of the challenges and solutions related to publishing case reports in today's digital and academic landscape is particularly enlightening. It thoughtfully addresses issues such as the impact factor, space limitations, and the evolving focus of scientific research, proposing innovative strategies for their integration into contemporary medical literature. Moreover, the article provides practical guidance on crafting effective case reports, emphasizing the importance of ethical considerations and structured presentation. It successfully bridges the gap between historical context and modern challenges, offering a balanced view of the significance and future of clinical case reports in medical scholarship. This is a well-crafted article that merits publication, provided certain points are addressed.

  1. The notion of dedicating specific sections or special editions to case reports could inadvertently create a hierarchy within medical journals, potentially undermining the status of this format. Are there alternative methods of integrating case reports into mainstream research, rather than segregating them?
    ResponseYour insightful comments are greatly appreciated, enriching our discussion, and adding valuable perspectives. The proposal to create dedicated sections or special editions for case reports is not about creating hierarchy but recognizing the significance of these contributions. It ensures that these insights receive the attention they deserve while coexisting harmoniously with another research. I have seamlessly integrated your valuable input into the manuscript, meticulously marking the alterations with distinctive red highlights.
     
  2. While encouraging the citation of case reports in larger studies is beneficial, how can journals ensure that this practice does not lead to cherry-picking or a biased selection of cases that support the study's findings, potentially compromising objectivity, and transparency in research?
    ResponseYour insightful comments have not gone unnoticed, and I value your contributions to the discussion. Certainly, promoting the inclusion of case reports in larger studies offers benefits, yet it is vital to ensure protection against selective and biased case selection. Journals can establish guidelines for authors, emphasizing the importance of citing relevant case reports objectively, whether they support or challenge the study's findings. Transparency in the citation process, with clear justifications for inclusion, can deter bias. Furthermore, peer reviewers and editors should scrutinize the selection of case reports during the review process. Incorporating independent experts in cases where bias is suspected can provide an additional layer of objectivity. By maintaining rigorous editorial oversight and promoting ethical citation practices, journals can strike a balance that benefits both case reports and larger studies while upholding research integrity. I have skillfully merged your valuable input, denoting the revisions with meticulous red highlighting.
     
  3. How do we ensure that the experts selected for this specialized review are impartial and not predisposed to favor certain types of cases or authors?
    ResponseI concur with the reviewer's observation. Ensuring the impartiality of specialized reviewers is paramount. Transparent selection criteria and safeguards against conflicts of interest should be in place. Furthermore, the rotation of specialized reviewers and diverse expertise can help prevent bias. I have thoroughly addressed your concerns and skillfully integrated them into the manuscript, making the necessary changes with red markings for clarity.
     
  4. Allocating a fixed percentage of publication space to case reports might inadvertently limit the flexibility of journals to accommodate varying submission volumes across different fields. How can journals strike a balance between maintaining diversity and ensuring quality while dealing with the unpredictability of submissions?
    ResponseYour insightful comments are valued and appreciated for their thought-provoking nature. Assigning a set percentage of publication space to case reports may present inflexibility concerns. Journals should consider implementing a dynamic approach that allows for adjustments contingent on submission volume and quality. This dynamic approach encompasses a flexible range within the allocated percentage, permitting adaptations based on the quantity and excellence of submissions received. Such an approach provides the necessary room to modify the space devoted to case reports according to the actual number of submissions and their quality. Ultimately, this strategy enables journals to strike a harmonious balance between showcasing diverse case reports and maintaining high quality, while accommodating fluctuations in submission quantity and quality over time. I have carefully addressed your expressed concerns, skillfully incorporating them into the manuscript and using red markings for clarity.
     
  5. Ethical considerations, like obtaining consent and ensuring patient anonymity, are crucial in writing case reports. However, is there a risk that these ethical standards, particularly in obtaining consent, might limit the availability of valuable clinical information, especially in cases where obtaining consent is challenging or impossible? How can medical literature balance ethical considerations with the need to share critical medical knowledge that could benefit patient care and medical research?
    ResponseI share the same perspective as the reviewer regarding the comments. Navigating the complexities of ethical considerations and consent challenges in medical literature requires an understanding of diverse legal frameworks, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the United States, along with other region-specific regulations. To effectively manage this intricate legal environment, medical literature should establish stringent ethical guidelines and consent protocols that are in harmony with the legal stipulations of the relevant jurisdiction. This approach enables journals to maintain a responsible balance between adhering to ethical and legal mandates and disseminating critical clinical information that advances patient care and medical research. I extend my heartfelt appreciation for your invaluable input. I have thoughtfully integrated your concerns into the manuscript, marking the changes with red annotations for clarity and transparency.