====== Clinical Case Reports ====== ===== 🧾 Journal Overview ===== * **Publisher**: Wiley * **ISSN**: 2050-0904 (Online) * **Scope**: Broad-spectrum open-access journal focused on the publication of clinical case reports across all areas of medicine. * **Impact Factor**: Not indexed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR); relies on alternative metrics such as **CiteScore** (Scopus: ~0.8 as of 2024). ===== 🧠 Strengths ===== * **Wide Accessibility**: * Open access model facilitates global dissemination. * Useful for clinicians in low-resource settings. * **Inclusive Scope**: * Accepts submissions from all specialties. * Encourages interdisciplinary and early-career submissions. * **Rapid Publication**: * Turnaround time ~4–6 weeks. * Emphasis on dissemination over prestige. * **Educational Utility**: * Real-world cases useful for clinical training and teaching. ===== ⚠️ Limitations and Criticisms ===== * **Low Scientific Rigor**: * Mostly anecdotal reports with limited generalizability. * Sparse discussion of differential diagnoses or mechanisms. * **Editorial Selectivity**: * Low threshold for acceptance. * Potential for case inflation and publication volume over quality. * APC ($1,800 USD) may bias acceptance policy. * **Not Indexed in Major Rankings**: * Not listed in Web of Science (SCIE). * Limited value for academic CVs or research grants. * **Reproducibility and Ethical Oversight**: * Often lacks imaging, diagnostic work-up, or explicit consent. * Ethical review rarely mentioned. ===== 🧩 Comparison with Peer Journals ===== ^ Journal ^ Strength ^ Weakness ^ | ''BMJ Case Reports'' | Strong editorial guidance, peer-review | Subscription-based, limited access | | ''Clinical Case Reports'' | Open access, rapid publishing | Low academic impact, weak filtering | | ''Cureus'' | Fast, PubMed-indexed | Perceived low editorial standards | | ''Case Reports in Neurology''| Specialty focus, PubMed-indexed | Narrower audience | ===== 🧭 Final Verdict ===== ''Clinical Case Reports'' serves a niche role in: * Showcasing rare or illustrative clinical cases * Offering publication opportunity for early-career authors * Providing educational material for teaching rounds However, its: * **Low impact** * **Lack of indexing** * **Minimal critical review** ...limit its use in high-level evidence synthesis or academic advancement. **Recommendation**: * ✅ Suitable for: * Unique or instructive cases * Didactic sharing within departments * First-time clinical authors * ❌ Not suitable for: * Impactful academic CV building * Meta-analyses or guideline citation * Competitive research funding portfolios