The Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiology is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and transparency through a rigorous peer-review process. We are committed to publishing high-quality research that advances cardiovascular medicine and clinical practice. To ensure the objectivity and fairness of the review process, the journal operates a double-blinded peer review system through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) - Public Knowledge Project (PKP) platform. This ensures that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process, promoting impartiality in the evaluation of manuscripts.

Peer review is the cornerstone of quality control in academic publishing. It helps to guarantee that published research is accurate, valid, and adds value to the scientific literature. Our peer-review process is designed not only to identify and select the best research but also to provide constructive feedback that enhances the quality of manuscripts before publication.

Objectives of the Peer-Review Process

The peer-review process at the Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiology is designed to:

• Ensure Scientific Quality: Manuscripts are assessed for scientific rigor, relevance, and originality, ensuring that only high-quality research is accepted for publication.
• Maintain Ethical Integrity: Ethical concerns related to research conduct, data integrity, and conflicts of interest are thoroughly addressed during the review process.
• Foster Constructive Feedback: The peer review provides authors with critical feedback to improve the clarity, methodology, and overall quality of their research.
• Enhance Transparency and Accountability: The journal employs transparent editorial practices to ensure that authors, reviewers, and readers trust the review process.

Key Components of the Peer-Review Process

1. Double-Blinded Peer Review System

In the double-blinded peer-review process, neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identities. This anonymity is crucial in ensuring that the review is free from bias or preconceived opinions about the authors or their affiliations. The manuscript is evaluated solely based on its content and scientific merit.

• Anonymity of Authors: The manuscript submitted by the authors is stripped of any identifying information before being sent to reviewers. This includes names, institutional affiliations, and any other information that could reveal the identity of the authors.
• Anonymity of Reviewers: Reviewers' identities are also kept confidential from the authors to encourage honest, unbiased feedback without fear of reprisal.

2. Submission and Initial Editorial Screening

• Submission Process: Authors submit their manuscripts via the OJS-PKP platform, where they are first subjected to an initial screening by the editorial team. This screening assesses whether the manuscript fits within the scope of the journal and meets basic submission requirements, such as formatting and adherence to ethical guidelines.
• Initial Plagiarism Check: The editorial team conducts a plagiarism check using advanced detection software to ensure the originality of the submission. Manuscripts that fail the plagiarism check are rejected or sent back to authors for revisions.
• Scope and Quality Check: Manuscripts are reviewed for alignment with the journal’s scope and standards. Submissions that do not meet these criteria are promptly returned to authors, with suggestions for alternative journals when appropriate.

3. Assignment of the Editor

• Once the manuscript passes the initial editorial screening, it is assigned to an Associate Editor with expertise in the manuscript’s subject area. The editor plays a critical role in guiding the manuscript through the review process, including selecting qualified reviewers and making the final decision on the manuscript.
• Role of the Editor: The editor is responsible for:
  • Ensuring that the manuscript receives a fair and unbiased review.
  • Selecting reviewers with relevant expertise.
  • Mediating between authors and reviewers, especially if revisions are requested.
  • Making the final publication decision based on reviewer recommendations.

4. Selection of Reviewers

• Expert Reviewers: The editor selects reviewers who have relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers are chosen based on their publication record, research expertise, and previous performance as reviewers.
• Number of Reviewers: Typically, each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts. In some cases, more reviewers may be assigned, particularly if the manuscript spans multiple disciplines or if conflicting reviews are received.
• Confidentiality: All reviewers are required to treat the manuscript as a confidential document. They must not discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the review process, and they are prohibited from using the information in the manuscript for their own research.
• Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Reviewers are asked to disclose any conflicts of interest that could compromise their objectivity. If a conflict is identified, the reviewer must decline the review, and another suitable reviewer will be selected.

5. Reviewers' Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on several criteria:

• Scientific Validity and Rigor: Does the manuscript employ sound research methodology? Are the results reliable and reproducible?
• Originality and Contribution: Does the manuscript present novel findings that contribute to the advancement of cardiovascular medicine?
• Clarity of Presentation: Is the manuscript well-written and logically structured? Are the figures, tables, and supplementary materials clear and informative?
• Relevance to the Journal: Does the manuscript address important questions in cardiovascular medicine that are of interest to the journal’s readership?
• Ethical Considerations: Are there any ethical concerns regarding the research, such as improper handling of human or animal subjects, lack of informed consent, or undisclosed conflicts of interest?

Reviewers are also encouraged to provide constructive feedback to authors, helping them improve their manuscript before final publication.

6. Reviewers’ Recommendations

After reviewing the manuscript, reviewers make one of the following recommendations:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minor revisions.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor improvements before it can be accepted.
• Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant revisions to address methodological or interpretive issues, but may be reconsidered after substantial changes.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

7. Editorial Decision

• Decision Based on Reviewer Reports: After receiving reviewer reports, the assigned editor makes a decision. If the reports are conflicting, the editor may either seek additional reviews or provide their own assessment to reach a final decision.
• Communicating Feedback: The editor provides the authors with detailed feedback, including the reviewers’ comments. If revisions are requested, authors are expected to respond to each comment and submit a revised version of the manuscript within the allotted time.
• Revised Manuscripts: If major revisions are requested, the revised manuscript is typically sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation. This ensures that the changes meet the reviewers’ expectations and that the manuscript has improved as required.

8. Revision and Resubmission Process

• Author Response: Authors are required to respond to all reviewer comments in a detailed, point-by-point manner. They should clearly indicate how the manuscript has been revised in response to each comment.
• Timely Submission: Authors are given a specific timeframe to submit their revised manuscript. If authors need additional time, they must request an extension.
• Second Round of Review: If the manuscript underwent major revisions, it may be sent back to the original reviewers for further review. The goal of this additional review is to ensure that the revisions satisfactorily address the reviewers’ comments.

9. Timeliness and Efficiency

• Prompt Reviews: The journal emphasizes timeliness in the peer-review process. Reviewers are given deadlines to complete their evaluations, and editors ensure that the process moves efficiently without compromising the quality of the review.
• Continuous Monitoring: The OJS-PKP platform allows for continuous monitoring of the review process. Authors can check the status of their manuscript at any time and are kept informed of each step in the process.

10. Transparency in the Peer-Review Process

• Tracking and Transparency: The OJS-PKP platform provides full transparency in tracking the peer-review process. Authors can follow the progress of their manuscript at every stage, ensuring they are informed about its status at all times.
• Open Communication: Editors, authors, and reviewers are encouraged to communicate openly through the platform. Authors can clarify comments and ask questions, while reviewers can provide more context or request additional information.

11. Handling Ethical Concerns

• Reporting Ethical Issues: If a reviewer identifies ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or conflicts of interest, they must report them to the editor. The editorial team will investigate the issue according to COPE guidelines.
• Ethical Investigation: The editorial team takes ethical concerns seriously and follows a clear protocol for investigating allegations of misconduct. This may include contacting the authors for clarification, retracting the manuscript, or escalating the issue to the authors’ institutions if necessary.
• Publication Ethics Oversight: The journal adheres to the highest ethical standards as outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any ethical breaches discovered during peer review are dealt with swiftly and transparently.

12. Appeals Process

• Right to Appeal: Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Appeals must be well-reasoned and based on specific points of disagreement with the reviewers or editors.
• Review of Appeal: The Editor-in-Chief will review all appeals, and if necessary, consult additional reviewers or subject experts to re-evaluate the manuscript. The outcome of the appeal will be communicated to the authors promptly.

Ethical Standards in Peer Review

The Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiology is committed to upholding ethical publishing practices in accordance with the principles of COPE. We expect all parties involved in the peer-review process to adhere to the following ethical standards:

• Confidentiality: All materials submitted for review are treated as confidential documents.
• Impartiality: Reviews should be conducted impartially and based solely on the content of the manuscript, without bias or influence from external factors.
• Ethical Reporting: Reviewers are expected to report any ethical concerns to the editor immediately.

Conclusion

The peer-review process at the Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiology is designed to ensure that the research we publish is of the highest quality. Through our double-blinded and transparent review system, hosted on the OJS-PKP platform, we strive to provide a fair, thorough, and timely review process that meets the needs of both authors and readers. Our commitment to rigorous peer review reflects our dedication to advancing cardiovascular research and clinical practice through the publication of trustworthy, impactful scientific work.

By adhering to this comprehensive peer-review policy, we aim to contribute to the ongoing development of cardiovascular medicine while maintaining the highest ethical and academic standards.