Peer review relies on editorial oversight to ensure that reviewer reports meet standards of scientific rigor and relevance. However, concerns may arise when reviewer comments are removed after key editorial or author decisions have already occurred. This case study examines an incident at the Journal of Clinical Medicine (MDPI) in which an editor rejected and removed reviewer comments on the basis of “insufficient scientific evidence” after the author had formally rejected the editorial decision and declined further consideration of the manuscript. By analyzing the submission timeline and editorial correspondence, this report explores the implications of post-decision removal of reviewer feedback for transparency, reviewer accountability, and editorial consistency. The case highlights the need for clearer guidelines on when and how reviewer reports may be evaluated, modified, or removed, particularly once the peer-review process has effectively concluded. Recommendations are offered to strengthen trust and procedural clarity in scholarly publishing.
link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/400251604_Editorial_Removal_of_Reviewer_Comments_for_Insufficient_Scientific_Evidence_Following_Author_Rejection_A_Case_Study_from_the_Journal_of_Clinical_Medicine
