The Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine (JCCM) is dedicated to maintaining a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, evidence-based research in the field of cardiology and cardiovascular medicine. The peer review process upholds the highest standards of scientific integrity, fairness, and timeliness.

Peer Review Process

1. Initial Manuscript Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team to ensure it aligns with the scope and standards of the journal. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic criteria for quality, originality, or relevance to cardiovascular medicine may be rejected at this stage without external peer review.

2. Selection of Reviewers

Qualified reviewers with expertise in the relevant areas of cardiology are invited to evaluate the manuscript. The selection of reviewers is based on their academic credentials, experience, and previous contributions to the field. The process ensures that at least two independent reviewers assess the manuscript to provide balanced and unbiased feedback.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

The JCCM follows a double-blind review process, where the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept confidential. This ensures impartiality and prevents potential biases during the evaluation.

4. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on scientific rigor, methodology, relevance, originality, and ethical standards. They provide detailed comments, highlighting strengths and suggesting improvements. Reviewers also assess the clarity of the manuscript, the validity of data, and the significance of findings in advancing the field of cardiology.

5. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editorial team makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript meets all criteria and is ready for publication.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes, which the authors must address before acceptance.
• Major Revisions: Significant changes are needed, and the manuscript may undergo a second round of review.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards for publication.

6. Revision and Resubmission

If revisions are required, authors are given the opportunity to revise their manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. The revised manuscript is resubmitted and may be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation. Authors should address all feedback thoroughly and provide a response document outlining the changes made.

7. Final Acceptance and Publication

Once the manuscript meets all requirements and the reviewers’ concerns have been adequately addressed, it is accepted for publication. The final version undergoes copyediting, formatting, and proofing before being published online and in print.

8. Post-Publication Review

The JCCM encourages post-publication discussions and reviews. If readers or researchers identify any issues or potential errors, they are encouraged to contact the editorial office. Corrections, clarifications, or retractions are handled transparently according to the journal’s policies.

9. Ethical Oversight

The peer review process adheres to the highest ethical standards, following guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any ethical concerns related to research integrity, data falsification, or misconduct are thoroughly investigated.

The JCCM is committed to ensuring a fair, timely, and rigorous peer review process. For questions or further information regarding the peer review process, please contact the editorial office.