Peer Review Process | Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiology

Foreword

Welcome to the Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiology (JCMC), a leading platform that showcases cutting-edge research and significant developments in cardiovascular science. Our journal serves as a crucial space where clinicians, researchers, and healthcare professionals from around the globe can share their work, learn from others, and collaborate toward better cardiovascular health outcomes.

Cardiovascular diseases are a major global health issue, responsible for millions of deaths every year. The burden they place on healthcare systems and society is immense, and solving this challenge requires both innovation and collaboration. At JCMC, we are dedicated to supporting this mission by publishing research that fosters innovation, supports evidence-based practices, and helps translate scientific discoveries into real-world clinical applications.

Our commitment to high standards is reflected in our peer-review process, which is thorough, ethical, and designed to ensure the quality and transparency of the research we publish. We strictly align our practices with the requirements set by major indexing databases, such as DOAJ, Journal Citation Reports (JCR), PubMed, Web of Science, Scimago, and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), among others. By adhering to these standards, we aim to enhance the visibility and impact of the research published in our journal.

We believe that the collaborative efforts of authors, reviewers, and editors are key to our journal’s success. Authors provide the valuable research that pushes the boundaries of cardiovascular medicine, reviewers offer critical and constructive evaluations to improve the work, and editors ensure the publication process is fair, efficient, and transparent. Together, we are creating a platform that advances cardiovascular medicine and helps improve patient care worldwide.

Peer-Review Process

The peer-review process is at the core of the integrity, quality, and relevance of the research published in JCMC. Our peer-review process is meticulously structured to ensure that each manuscript meets the highest standards of scientific rigor, ethical integrity, and relevance to the field of cardiovascular medicine. Below is a detailed explanation of how the process works:

2.1. Manuscript Submission

Authors are invited to submit their manuscripts via our secure online submission system, which can be accessed through our journal's website. This system streamlines the submission process and ensures efficient communication between authors, editors, and reviewers.

Before submitting, authors must prepare their manuscripts according to our Author Guidelines, which outline detailed instructions on formatting, citation styles, and ethical considerations. Key points include:

Formatting: The manuscript should be typed in a standard font, such as Times New Roman (12-point), double-spaced, with 1-inch margins. All pages must be numbered consecutively.
Structure: Manuscripts must include the following sections: Title Page, Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions, Acknowledgments, References, and any supplementary material.
Title Page: This should contain the manuscript title, authors' names and affiliations, corresponding author’s contact details, and any necessary disclosures.
Abstract and Keywords: Provide a concise summary of the study, along with up to six keywords for indexing purposes.
References: All references should be correctly formatted according to the journal's preferred citation style, ensuring accuracy and completeness.

Manuscripts must comply with ethical standards, including:

Ethical Approvals: For studies involving human or animal subjects, authors must include approval from the relevant institutional review boards or ethics committees.
Informed Consent: For studies involving human participants, a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained is required.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest or financial support related to the study.

Once submitted, authors will receive an acknowledgment email, and they can track the status of their submission through the online system.

2.2. Initial Screening

Upon receiving a manuscript, it goes through an initial screening by the editorial office to ensure that it meets the basic criteria for further consideration. The screening process involves:

Scope and Relevance: The manuscript must be relevant to the field of cardiovascular medicine and aligned with the journal's aims and scope.
Compliance with Guidelines: Manuscripts must adhere to the journal’s formatting and structural requirements.
Completeness: All sections and supplementary materials, such as figures and tables, must be included.
Language Quality: Manuscripts must be written in clear, concise English to facilitate understanding and review.

Manuscripts that fail to meet these initial criteria may be returned to authors for correction or rejected if they are deemed out of scope.

2.3. Plagiarism and Ethics Check

JCMC takes the integrity of the scientific record very seriously. As part of our commitment to ethical publishing, all submitted manuscripts undergo a plagiarism check using advanced detection software. This check helps identify issues such as:

Duplicate Publication: Instances where the content has already been published elsewhere.
Textual Similarity: Significant overlaps with previously published works, which may indicate plagiarism.
Image Manipulation: Alterations to figures or images that misrepresent data.

If plagiarism or ethical concerns are detected, the manuscript may be flagged for revision, or in serious cases, rejected outright. Authors are responsible for ensuring that their work is original and properly cited.

2.4. Assignment to an Editor

Once a manuscript passes the initial screening and plagiarism check, it is assigned to a Section Editor who specializes in the relevant area of cardiovascular medicine. The Section Editor plays a crucial role in the review process by:

Assessing Suitability: Determining whether the manuscript is appropriate for peer review based on its scientific merit.
Identifying Reviewers: Selecting qualified reviewers with expertise in the subject area.
Overseeing the Review Process: Ensuring the timely completion of the review.

The assignment is made with careful consideration to avoid conflicts of interest, ensuring that the editor assigned has no personal or professional connections to the authors.

2.5. Reviewer Selection

The Section Editor selects at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the field to evaluate the manuscript. Reviewers are chosen based on:

Expertise: Reviewers must have demonstrated knowledge of the subject area, evidenced by publications or professional experience.
Objectivity: Reviewers should have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the study.
Availability: Reviewers must be able to complete their evaluations within the specified timeframe, usually between 2 to 4 weeks.

Reviewers are invited through the online system and provided with the manuscript and guidelines for the review. They are expected to maintain confidentiality and disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

2.6. Double-Blind Review

To ensure impartiality, JCMC employs a double-blind review process, where:

Anonymity of Authors: The authors’ identities are not revealed to reviewers.
Anonymity of Reviewers: Reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors.

This process minimizes potential biases based on the authors' affiliations, reputations, or other irrelevant factors, ensuring that the manuscript is evaluated purely on its content and contribution to the field.

2.7. Review Criteria

Reviewers are tasked with evaluating the manuscript based on the following criteria:

Originality: The research should introduce new knowledge or insights to the field.
Significance: The study should address an important question in cardiovascular medicine.
Methodological Rigor: The design, data collection, and analysis methods should be appropriate and robust.
Validity of Data: The data presented should be accurate, reliable, and support the conclusions drawn.
Clarity of Presentation: The manuscript should be logically structured, clearly written, and easy to follow.
Ethical Compliance: The study must adhere to the ethical standards of research involving human or animal subjects.

Reviewers provide detailed feedback, pointing out strengths and weaknesses, and offering suggestions for improvement.

2.8. Reviewer Reports

Once reviewers complete their evaluation of a manuscript, they are required to submit their reports through the journal’s online submission system. These reports are an essential part of the peer-review process and should include:

Summary of Findings: This is a brief overview of the study’s purpose, methodology, and key findings. Reviewers should summarize the main contributions of the manuscript and identify any significant strengths or weaknesses.
Detailed Comments: Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and detailed feedback on various aspects of the manuscript. This can include comments on the study design, data collection methods, statistical analysis, presentation of results, and overall clarity of the manuscript. Reviewers should offer suggestions for improvements, including pointing out any inconsistencies or areas that need clarification. If specific sections require major revisions, reviewers should clearly explain why.
Recommendations: Reviewers must make a recommendation for the editorial decision based on their assessment of the manuscript. The possible recommendations include:

Accept without Changes: The manuscript is of high quality and is suitable for publication as it is.
Accept with Minor Revisions: The manuscript is strong but requires minor adjustments, such as improving clarity, correcting small errors, or providing additional explanations.
Revise and Resubmit: Significant issues need to be addressed before the manuscript can be reconsidered. The authors are required to make major revisions to their manuscript and resubmit it for another round of peer review.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or is outside the scope of the journal. Reasons for rejection should be clearly outlined in the reviewer’s report.

Reviewers are encouraged to be objective, respectful, and supportive in their feedback. The goal of the peer-review process is to help authors improve the quality of their work and to ensure that only high-quality, scientifically sound research is published.

2.9. Editorial Decision

After receiving the reviewer reports, the Section Editor carefully reviews the feedback and makes a decision on the manuscript. Several factors are considered during this stage:

Consensus Among Reviewers: If both reviewers provide similar recommendations, the editorial decision is usually straightforward. However, if the reviewers offer conflicting recommendations (e.g., one recommends acceptance while the other suggests rejection), the Section Editor must carefully weigh the arguments provided by each reviewer.
Quality of Reviews: The thoroughness and validity of the reviewers’ comments play a crucial role in the editorial decision. The Section Editor evaluates how well the reviewers have identified the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
Editorial Judgment: In addition to the reviewers’ assessments, the Section Editor uses their own expertise and judgment to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for publication in JCMC. This includes evaluating the relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope and the potential impact of the research.

In cases where reviewers have conflicting opinions, the Section Editor may take one of the following actions:

Consult Additional Reviewers: The Section Editor may invite a third reviewer to provide an additional assessment to resolve discrepancies.
Weigh Expertise: The Section Editor will consider the expertise of each reviewer and how well their comments align with the manuscript’s subject matter.
Make an Informed Decision: Based on all available information, the Section Editor makes a final decision on whether to accept, request revisions, or reject the manuscript.

The editorial decision falls into one of the same categories as the reviewer recommendations: accept without changes, accept with minor revisions, revise and resubmit, or reject.

2.10. Author Notification

Once the Section Editor has made a decision on the manuscript, the authors are promptly notified via the journal’s online submission system. The notification includes the following elements:

Decision Letter: A formal letter is sent to the corresponding author, outlining the editorial decision (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject) and providing detailed instructions on the next steps.
Reviewer Comments: The authors receive anonymous feedback from the reviewers, which is intended to help them understand the strengths and weaknesses of their manuscript. Reviewer comments offer valuable insights into how the manuscript can be improved, particularly if revisions are required.
Revision Instructions: If revisions are needed, the notification will include detailed guidance on how to address the reviewers’ comments. Authors are provided with a clear set of instructions and are given a specific deadline to submit their revised manuscript. The standard timeframe is 4 weeks for minor revisions and 8 weeks for major revisions.

Authors are encouraged to carefully review all feedback and instructions provided. If any points are unclear, authors can reach out to the Section Editor for clarification.

2.11. Manuscript Revision

When a manuscript requires revision, the authors are expected to make the necessary changes based on the reviewer feedback and editorial guidance. This is a critical step in the peer-review process, as it ensures that the manuscript meets the journal’s standards for scientific rigor and clarity. The revision process typically involves the following steps:

Addressing Reviewer Comments: Authors should carefully address each of the reviewer’s comments, indicating how they have responded to the feedback. If authors disagree with a particular comment, they must provide a clear rationale for why they have chosen not to make a specific change. The goal is to engage constructively with the reviewer feedback and to improve the manuscript as much as possible.
Revised Manuscript: The revised manuscript should be submitted through the online system, with changes clearly highlighted or tracked. This helps both the Section Editor and the reviewers easily identify what has been changed.
Timely Resubmission: Authors are given a specific timeframe in which to submit their revised manuscript (typically 4 weeks for minor revisions and 8 weeks for major revisions). It is important to meet these deadlines to avoid delays in the publication process. If additional time is needed, authors should communicate with the editorial office to request an extension.

Once the revised manuscript is submitted, it may either be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation, or the Section Editor may assess it independently, depending on the extent of the revisions.

2.12. Final Decision

After the revised manuscript is submitted and evaluated, the Editor-in-Chief or the Section Editor makes the final decision regarding the publication of the manuscript. The final decision is based on the following considerations:

Adequacy of Revisions: The editor assesses whether the authors have adequately addressed all of the reviewers’ comments and whether the manuscript has been improved as required.
Overall Quality: The editor evaluates the final quality of the manuscript, including its scientific contribution, relevance to the field of cardiovascular medicine, and clarity of presentation.
Timeliness: The editor considers the timeliness of the research in the context of current scientific discussions. Research that addresses pressing questions in cardiovascular medicine may be prioritized for publication.

Once the final decision is made, the authors are notified through the online system. If the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to the production stage, where it will be copyedited, formatted, and published.

2.13. Proofreading and Publication

Once a manuscript has been accepted for publication, it undergoes several final steps before it appears in the journal. This process involves:

Copyediting: The manuscript is carefully edited for grammar, style, and consistency. The goal of copyediting is to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal’s high standards for readability and presentation.
Formatting: The layout of the manuscript is adjusted to fit the journal’s design specifications, ensuring a professional appearance.
Proofs: Authors are provided with galley proofs of their manuscript to review for any remaining errors or corrections. This is the final opportunity for authors to ensure that their manuscript is accurate and free from typographical errors.
Final Approval: Authors must approve the final version of their manuscript before it is published.
Online Publication: Once the final version is approved, the article is published online ahead of print. This ensures that the research is available to the global scientific community as soon as possible and enhances the potential for early citations.
Print Publication: The article will also appear in the next available print issue of the journal.

Throughout the proofreading and publication process, authors are kept informed and are expected to respond promptly to any queries to ensure timely publication.

Ethical Standards

The Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiology (JCMC) is dedicated to maintaining the highest ethical standards throughout the publication process. Ethical integrity is crucial for the trustworthiness of the journal and its reputation in the academic community. Our ethical guidelines are in line with the standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other global ethical bodies, ensuring compliance with the expectations of major indexing databases. All participants in the publication process—authors, reviewers, and editors—are expected to adhere to these ethical standards.

3.1 Responsibilities of Authors

Originality: Authors must ensure that their submitted work is original and has not been previously published elsewhere. Submitting the same research to multiple journals simultaneously is unethical and is not tolerated. Authors are required to certify that their manuscript is their own original contribution to the field.
Accurate Reporting: The research findings must be reported accurately and transparently. Authors must not engage in data fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation of data. All presented results should truthfully reflect the data obtained during the research process.
Acknowledgment of Sources: Proper citation and acknowledgment of all relevant sources is mandatory. Authors should ensure that all references to previous work are appropriately cited to give credit to the original researchers.
Authorship Criteria: Only individuals who have made significant contributions to the research and manuscript preparation should be listed as authors. Authors must ensure that all co-authors have approved the final version of the manuscript before submission.
Disclosure of Conflicts: Any potential conflicts of interest, whether financial or personal, must be fully disclosed by the authors. Additionally, financial support for the research must be acknowledged.

3.2 Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal. Their ethical responsibilities include:

Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. The content should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside of the peer-review process, and reviewers should refrain from using any unpublished information from the manuscript for their personal research.
Objectivity: Peer reviews should be conducted impartially, without personal bias. Reviewers must evaluate the manuscript solely on its scientific merit, without letting their personal opinions or affiliations influence their assessment.
Acknowledgment of Sources: If reviewers identify any relevant work that has not been cited by the authors, they are expected to inform the editors. Reviewers should also notify the editors of any instances where substantial overlap with previously published work is found.
Conflict of Interest: If a reviewer has any conflicts of interest with the authors or the manuscript (e.g., financial, academic, or personal relationships), they must disclose this to the editor and recuse themselves from the review process.

3.3 Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated fairly and transparently. Their ethical obligations include:

Fair Evaluation: Editors must evaluate manuscripts based solely on their intellectual content, without discrimination based on the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or political views.
Confidentiality: Editors must protect the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts and the identities of reviewers. Unpublished information must not be used for personal gain or disclosed to third parties.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Editors must not handle manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest. In such cases, the manuscript should be reassigned to another editor without any conflict. Editors should also ensure that the peer-review process is free from bias and conflicts.
Ethical Oversight: Editors are responsible for investigating any ethical concerns or allegations of misconduct that arise during the peer-review process. They should handle such issues promptly, following COPE guidelines, and take corrective actions if necessary, including retraction of published articles in cases of proven misconduct.

By adhering to these ethical standards, JCMC ensures the integrity of the research it publishes and strengthens its eligibility for inclusion in major indexing databases.

Confidentiality

Maintaining confidentiality is essential to the integrity of the peer-review process. JCMC takes confidentiality very seriously and expects all participants to uphold this principle throughout the publication process. Confidentiality ensures that sensitive information is protected, and it fosters trust among authors, reviewers, and editors.

Manuscript Content: The content of submitted manuscripts, including data, figures, and tables, must be treated as confidential. Reviewers and editors are required to maintain confidentiality and refrain from sharing manuscript details with anyone outside the review process. This ensures that unpublished research is not disclosed prematurely.
Reviewer Identities: JCMC follows a double-blind peer-review process, which means that the identities of reviewers are kept confidential and are not disclosed to authors. This anonymity helps to prevent bias and ensures that reviews are conducted impartially.
Author Identities: In line with the double-blind review policy, the identities of authors are also concealed from reviewers to avoid potential conflicts of interest or bias based on the authors’ affiliations or reputations.
Communication: All communications between authors, reviewers, and editors are considered confidential. Breaches of confidentiality may undermine the trustworthiness of the peer-review process and are taken seriously by the journal. Any breach will be handled in accordance with COPE guidelines.

By ensuring confidentiality, JCMC aligns with the ethical standards expected by leading indexing bodies and maintains the integrity of the peer-review process.

Conflict of Interest

JCMC is committed to transparency in the publication process and requires all participants—authors, reviewers, and editors—to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment or decision-making.

Authors: When submitting a manuscript, authors must disclose any financial or personal relationships that may bias their research. This includes any funding sources, financial support, or personal relationships that could affect the objectivity of the research. Proper disclosure helps readers understand the potential influences on the research findings.
Reviewers: Reviewers are required to decline participation if they have any conflicts of interest with the authors or the content of the manuscript. Conflicts may include financial ties, academic collaborations, or personal relationships with the authors that could affect the impartiality of the review. Reviewers should notify the Section Editor if a conflict arises, and they will be excused from the review process.
Editors: Editors must also disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect their ability to evaluate a manuscript fairly. If an editor has a conflict, they must delegate the handling of the manuscript to another editor without any conflict of interest. Editors must avoid using unpublished data or information from submitted manuscripts for personal gain.

By addressing conflicts of interest, JCMC ensures that the peer-review process remains fair and objective, which is crucial for maintaining the journal’s integrity and compliance with the ethical requirements of major indexing databases.

Data Availability

Transparency in research is key to fostering trust and encouraging reproducibility. JCMC promotes the availability of data and encourages authors to share their datasets with the scientific community whenever possible. This openness allows other researchers to validate and build upon published work, enhancing the overall impact of the research.

Data Sharing Statements: Authors are required to include a Data Availability Statement within their manuscripts. This statement should specify whether the data used in the study are publicly available and, if so, provide details on how to access the data. If the data are not publicly available, authors must provide a valid reason, such as legal or ethical restrictions.
Repositories: Authors are encouraged to deposit their data in recognized public repositories, such as GenBank, Dryad, or figshare, where other researchers can access the data. Sharing data through trusted repositories enhances transparency and allows for greater reproducibility in scientific research.
Exceptions: In cases where sharing data is not possible due to confidentiality agreements, participant privacy, or legal restrictions, authors should clearly explain these limitations in the Data Availability Statement.

By promoting data availability, JCMC aligns with the best practices of major indexing databases, which emphasize the importance of data sharing for scientific progress and transparency.

Data Protection and Privacy

JCMC is committed to safeguarding the privacy and personal data of all participants in the publication process. The journal complies with global data protection regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), and other international privacy standards.

Personal Data Protection: Any personal information collected during the submission and review process is used solely for editorial purposes. This data is protected from unauthorized access, disclosure, or alteration using appropriate technical and organizational security measures.
Compliance with Global Regulations: JCMC adheres to data protection laws, including GDPR, CCPA, and other relevant privacy regulations from around the world, such as Brazil's General Data Protection Law (LGPD), Australia's Privacy Act, and Japan's Act on the Protection of Personal Information (APPI). These regulations ensure that personal data is handled responsibly and ethically.
Privacy Statements: Authors, reviewers, and editors can refer to the journal’s Privacy Statement, which outlines how personal data is collected, stored, and used in compliance with global privacy standards.

By upholding these principles of data protection and privacy, JCMC ensures that the personal information of all participants is handled responsibly and that the journal complies with international regulations, further enhancing its credibility with major indexing databases.

Instructions for Authors

The Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiology (JCMC) provides detailed instructions for authors to ensure that their submissions are prepared in accordance with the journal’s standards. Following these instructions helps streamline the submission process, enhances the quality of the research published, and ensures that manuscripts comply with the expectations of major indexing databases.

Manuscript Preparation

Authors should carefully prepare their manuscripts according to the journal’s Author Guidelines. This involves adhering to the required formatting, structure, and ethical standards. A well-prepared manuscript is critical to ensuring a smooth peer-review and publication process.

Formatting: Manuscripts should be formatted using a standard font such as Times New Roman (12-point), double-spaced, with 1-inch margins on all sides. Each page must be numbered consecutively. These formatting guidelines are essential for ensuring that manuscripts are easy to read and review.
Structure: Manuscripts must be clearly organized into sections, which should include:

Title Page: This should contain the title of the manuscript, the names and affiliations of all authors, the contact information for the corresponding author, and any acknowledgments or disclosures of conflicts of interest.
Abstract and Keywords: Authors should provide a concise summary of the study, typically no more than 250 words, along with up to six keywords for indexing purposes.
Introduction: The introduction should provide background information, the rationale for the study, and clearly stated research objectives.
Methods: This section should describe the research design, materials, procedures, and data analysis methods in detail to allow replication of the study by other researchers.
Results: Authors should present their findings clearly and logically, supported by tables, figures, and statistical analysis where appropriate.
Discussion: The discussion should interpret the findings in the context of existing literature, highlight the study’s limitations, and propose future research directions.
Conclusion: Authors should summarize the key findings of the study and its potential impact on cardiovascular medicine.
References: All sources cited in the manuscript must be listed in the References section, formatted according to the journal’s preferred citation style (e.g., Vancouver or APA). Proper citation ensures that authors give credit to previous research and enhances the credibility of the manuscript.

Originality

Authors must ensure that their manuscript is original and has not been previously published or submitted to another journal simultaneously. Any form of duplicate submission or plagiarism is considered unethical and can result in immediate rejection. Authors are encouraged to use plagiarism detection software to check their work before submission.

Ethical Compliance

For studies involving human or animal subjects, authors must include statements confirming ethical approval from the appropriate institutional review boards (IRBs) or ethics committees. The manuscript must also include confirmation that informed consent was obtained from all human participants.

Failure to comply with ethical standards may result in the rejection of the manuscript and notification of the authors’ institutions.

Disclosure of Conflicts

Authors are required to disclose any financial support, funding sources, or personal relationships that may influence the research. Transparency in conflict of interest disclosures is essential to maintaining the integrity of the research.

Data Sharing

JCMC encourages authors to share their research data whenever possible to promote transparency and reproducibility. Authors should include a Data Availability Statement in their manuscript and consider depositing their data in a recognized repository.

Timeliness

Authors are expected to respond promptly to communications from the editorial office and reviewers. Meeting submission deadlines and addressing feedback efficiently helps ensure a smooth and timely publication process.

By adhering to these instructions, authors contribute to a more efficient peer-review process and improve the chances of their work being accepted for publication in JCMC.

Instructions for Reviewers

Reviewers play a vital role in upholding the quality and integrity of the Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiology (JCMC). By providing constructive and unbiased feedback, reviewers help ensure that the published research is scientifically sound and relevant to the field. Reviewers are expected to follow the guidelines outlined below to facilitate an effective review process.

Objective Evaluation

Reviewers should provide an objective evaluation of the manuscript based solely on its scientific content, methodology, and contribution to the field of cardiovascular medicine. Personal biases or opinions unrelated to the research should not influence the review process.

Scientific Merit: The manuscript should be evaluated for its originality, significance, and potential impact on the field. Reviewers should assess whether the research addresses an important question and whether the findings advance knowledge in cardiovascular science.
Methodological Rigor: Reviewers are responsible for evaluating whether the research design, data collection methods, and statistical analysis are appropriate and robust. They should identify any methodological flaws or inconsistencies that may affect the validity of the study.
Data Validity: Reviewers should assess whether the data presented are accurate, reliable, and adequately support the conclusions drawn by the authors. If the data are unclear or incomplete, reviewers should suggest revisions or request additional information.

Timeliness

To avoid delays in the publication process, reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the agreed-upon timeframe, typically 2 to 4 weeks. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should notify the editorial office as soon as possible so that alternative arrangements can be made.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to JCMC are confidential documents. Reviewers are required to keep the content of the manuscript, as well as their review, confidential. Manuscripts should not be discussed with anyone outside the peer-review process, and reviewers should not use any unpublished information from the manuscript for their own research.

Conflict of Interest

If a reviewer identifies a conflict of interest—whether personal, financial, or professional—they must disclose this to the editor and recuse themselves from the review process. Conflicts of interest may arise if the reviewer has a close relationship with the authors or has a vested interest in the outcome of the research.

Professional Conduct

Reviewers are expected to communicate respectfully with authors and to provide feedback that is constructive and aimed at improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate and should be avoided. Reviewers should offer specific suggestions for how the authors can improve their work.

Providing Detailed Feedback

Reviewers should provide detailed, constructive feedback on specific aspects of the manuscript, including:

Clarity of Presentation: Does the manuscript clearly convey its objectives, methods, results, and conclusions? Are any sections difficult to understand or lacking clarity?
Methodological Concerns: Are the study design and methods appropriate for addressing the research question? Are there any weaknesses or limitations in the methodology that should be addressed?
Ethical Compliance: Does the manuscript comply with ethical standards for research involving human or animal subjects? Are there any concerns about how the research was conducted?
Originality and Impact: Is the research novel, and does it provide significant insights into cardiovascular medicine? Reviewers should highlight the manuscript’s strengths and offer suggestions for improving its impact.

By following these guidelines, reviewers contribute to the overall quality of the research published in JCMC and help ensure that the journal remains compliant with the standards required by major indexing databases.

Instructions for Editors

Editors are responsible for managing the peer-review process and ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, transparently, and efficiently. The Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiology (JCMC) relies on its editors to uphold the journal’s standards of scientific rigor and ethical integrity. Editors are expected to follow the instructions below to guide the review process and make informed decisions.

Fair Process

Editors must ensure that every manuscript submitted to JCMC is evaluated on its scientific merit and relevance to the field of cardiovascular medicine. Editors should avoid any form of bias based on the authors’ gender, race, affiliations, or personal beliefs. The editorial process must remain impartial and transparent.

Confidentiality

Editors are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of the peer-review process. This includes protecting the identities of both authors and reviewers. Editors must ensure that all communication between authors, reviewers, and the editorial office remains confidential.

Decision Making

Editors are responsible for making informed decisions based on the reviewers’ reports and their own evaluation of the manuscript. When reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, editors should carefully weigh the feedback and, if necessary, seek additional input from another reviewer. The editor’s final decision may be to:

Accept the manuscript without changes.
Request minor revisions.
Request major revisions and a resubmission.
Reject the manuscript.

Editors must communicate the decision to the authors clearly and provide constructive feedback to guide any necessary revisions.

Ethical Oversight

Editors are responsible for ensuring that all ethical concerns, including potential misconduct or conflicts of interest, are addressed promptly. If ethical issues arise during the peer-review process, editors must follow the guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to investigate and resolve the issue.

Conflict of Interest

If an editor has a conflict of interest with a particular manuscript, they must recuse themselves from the decision-making process and delegate responsibility to another editor. Editors should disclose any conflicts of interest and avoid using unpublished information for personal gain.

By following these instructions, editors contribute to the efficient and fair operation of the journal and ensure that JCMC continues to meet the ethical and scientific standards required for inclusion in major indexing databases.