Peer Review Policy

Commitment to Rigorous and Transparent Peer Review

The Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine (JCCM) is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of academic excellence through a robust and transparent peer review process. All manuscripts submitted to JCCM undergo a stringent review procedure to ensure the quality, originality, and scientific validity of published research.

By implementing a structured peer-review system, we aim to support and refine scientific contributions that advance cardiovascular research and improve patient care worldwide.

Peer Review Process

All submissions to JCCM follow a strict **double-blind peer review** process, ensuring an unbiased evaluation of manuscripts. The steps involved in the review process include:

  1. Initial Editorial Screening: The editorial team assesses the manuscript’s relevance, originality, formatting, and adherence to ethical guidelines.
  2. Assignment to Reviewers: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to **two or more independent reviewers** with expertise in the subject area.
  3. Double-Blind Review: Both the authors' and reviewers' identities are concealed to ensure an objective assessment.
  4. Reviewer Feedback: Reviewers provide detailed feedback, including strengths, weaknesses, suggestions for improvement, and a recommendation regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection.
  5. Author Revisions: If revisions are requested, authors must respond to reviewer comments and submit a revised version for further evaluation.
  6. Final Decision: The editor makes a final decision based on reviewer feedback and the quality of revisions.
  7. Publication: Accepted manuscripts are formatted, proofread, and published online with a **DOI for permanent indexing**.

Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following key criteria:

  • Scientific Validity: Accuracy, reliability, and validity of research methods and results.
  • Originality and Innovation: Contribution to the field of cardiology and cardiovascular medicine.
  • Clarity and Structure: Logical presentation, coherence, and adherence to journal formatting guidelines.
  • Ethical Compliance: Adherence to ethical research practices, including patient confidentiality and approval from ethics committees.
  • Relevance and Impact: Potential clinical and research significance in the field.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Peer reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and credibility of scientific research. Their responsibilities include:

  • Providing objective, constructive, and timely feedback.
  • Identifying methodological flaws, ethical concerns, or potential biases.
  • Maintaining confidentiality of the review process.
  • Declaring conflicts of interest if applicable.

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, research contributions, and commitment to upholding scholarly excellence.

Editorial Decision Outcomes

After peer review, the editorial team makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted with minor or no revisions.
  • Minor Revision: Authors must address minor concerns before acceptance.
  • Major Revision: Substantial changes are required; the revised manuscript undergoes another review round.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards.

Authors are notified of the decision along with constructive feedback to improve their work.

Appeals and Complaints

If authors believe their manuscript was unfairly rejected, they may appeal by providing a detailed response to the editorial office. Appeals will be reviewed by independent experts, and the final decision will be made by the editorial board.

Transparency and Ethical Peer Review

JCCM is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in peer review, in alignment with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the ICMJE recommendations.

For inquiries regarding the peer review process, please contact our editorial office at assistant-jccm@cardiologymedjournal.org