====== World Journal of Clinical Cases ======

**Publisher:** Baishideng Publishing Group  
**Format:** Open Access, English-language  
**Frequency:** Three issues per month  
**Review Process:** Single-blind peer review  
**Scope:** Case reports, clinical research, reviews, guidelines  

===== Impact and Metrics =====

  * **Impact Factor (2023):** ≈ 1.0 (5-year IF ~1.1)  
  * **H-index:** ~30  
  * **SCIE-indexed:** Yes  
  * **Ranking:** Q3 (Medicine, General & Internal)  
  * **Average Citations per Article:** < 2  
  * **Article Volume (2021):** ~1,300 (up from ~70 in 2017)

===== Strengths =====

  * ✅ Open access with rapid publication cycles (~1 month)  
  * ✅ Indexed in SCIE and PubMed Central  
  * ✅ Declared adherence to COPE ethical guidelines  
  * ✅ Useful for early-career authors needing visibility or academic credits  

===== Weaknesses =====

  * ⚠️ **Quantity over Quality**: Rapid growth has diluted scientific value  
  * ⚠️ **Minimal Peer Review Rigor**: Many articles accepted with superficial scrutiny  
  * ⚠️ **Low Citability**: Most case reports have minimal academic influence  
  * ⚠️ **Middling Prestige**: Q3 ranking limits institutional recognition  
  * ⚠️ **Predatory Optics**: Expansion strategy and APC model raise concerns, despite technical indexing  
  * ⚠️ **Lack of Editorial Selectivity**: Frequent publication of anecdotal, non-hypothesis-generating reports

===== Summary Table =====

^ Attribute         ^ Evaluation                                                ^
| Visibility        | ★★★☆☆ (SCIE-indexed, PubMed Central)                     |
| Scientific Rigor  | ★★☆☆☆ (Single-blind, often superficial)                  |
| Citation Impact   | ★☆☆☆☆ (Low citations per article)                        |
| Ethical Standing  | ★★★★☆ (COPE-compliant, no major misconduct reported)     |
| Ideal For         | Rapid dissemination of low-impact clinical observations  |

===== Final Assessment =====

World Journal of Clinical Cases offers a fast-track, open-access outlet for case reports, but at the cost of academic rigor and long-term influence. Its role is primarily archival and descriptive rather than investigational or hypothesis-generating. It is best seen as a **platform for documentation**, not for advancing the scientific frontier.

> ''Use cautiously. Suitable for descriptive cases, but inappropriate for research intended to shift clinical paradigms.''