Peer Review Policy

  1. Objective: The primary purpose of peer review is to ensure the quality, validity, and relevance of the research submitted for publication. Peer review helps to maintain the integrity and credibility of the journal by identifying strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement in submitted manuscripts.
  2. Peer Review Process: Upon submission, manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer review process conducted by experts in the relevant field(s) of medicine and cardiology. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and impartiality.
  3. Confidentiality: Reviewers are required to treat all manuscripts as confidential documents and refrain from disclosing any information about the manuscript or its contents to anyone outside of the peer review process.
  4. Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to provide their feedback and recommendations in a timely manner, typically within a specified timeframe determined by the editorial team. Prompt reviews expedite the publication process and minimize delays for authors.
  5. Constructive Feedback: Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive, objective, and unbiased feedback to authors. Feedback should focus on the scientific quality, clarity, methodology, significance, and originality of the research presented in the manuscript.
  6. Ethical Considerations: Reviewers should alert the editorial team to any potential ethical concerns, including plagiarism, data fabrication, or conflicts of interest. Any suspected misconduct should be reported promptly for further investigation.
  7. Reviewer Anonymity: Reviewers have the option to remain anonymous or disclose their identities to the authors. The editorial team respects reviewers' preferences regarding anonymity while ensuring the integrity and transparency of the peer review process.
  8. Editorial Decision: Based on the feedback provided by reviewers, the editorial team makes an informed decision regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript. Authors are notified of the editorial decision along with any recommendations for revisions.
  9. Appeals Process: Authors have the opportunity to appeal editorial decisions if they believe there are valid grounds for reconsideration. Appeals are handled in accordance with the journal's established procedures and may involve further evaluation by the editorial team or additional reviewers.
  10. Continuous Improvement: The editorial team continually evaluates and refines the peer review process to ensure its effectiveness, fairness, and transparency. Feedback from authors, reviewers, and readers is welcomed and used to enhance the quality of peer review and publication standards.