The Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine (JCCM) values the contribution of peer reviewers in maintaining the quality, accuracy, and scientific integrity of published research. Reviewers play a crucial role in ensuring that articles meet the highest standards of cardiology and cardiovascular medicine.

Reviewer Guidelines

1. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must critically evaluate manuscripts based on scientific merit, clarity, originality, and relevance to cardiology and cardiovascular medicine.

• Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents and not share or discuss their content outside the review process.
• Objectivity and Constructive Feedback: Reviews should be objective, free from personal bias, and provide constructive criticism to improve manuscript quality.
• Timeliness: Reviewers should complete their assessments within the specified timeframe and notify the editor if an extension is needed.
• Ethical Considerations: Any ethical concerns, including data fabrication, plagiarism, or conflicts of interest, should be reported to the editorial team.

2. Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers must assess manuscripts based on the following key criteria:

• Scientific Merit: The study should be well-structured, methodologically sound, and contribute to cardiovascular research.
• Originality and Significance: The research should present novel findings or valuable insights into cardiology and related fields.
• Clarity and Organization: The manuscript should be clearly written, logically structured, and well-presented.
• Methodology and Data Analysis: The study design, statistical methods, and data interpretation should be appropriate and well-documented.
• Relevance: The research should be relevant to the field of cardiology and aligned with the journal’s scope.

3. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must adhere to ethical guidelines to ensure fairness and credibility in the peer review process.

• Avoiding Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline to review if they have a personal or professional relationship with the authors.
• Maintaining Reviewer Anonymity: If the journal follows a double-blind review process, reviewers must not reveal their identity to the authors.
• Reporting Ethical Issues: If reviewers suspect plagiarism, data manipulation, or unethical research practices, they should report these concerns to the editor.

4. Writing an Effective Review

A good review should be thorough, balanced, and constructive. Reviewers should:

• Summarize the key strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
• Provide specific and actionable feedback to improve clarity, methodology, and interpretation.
• Suggest additional references or studies that could strengthen the research.
• Indicate whether the manuscript is suitable for publication, requires revision, or should be rejected.

5. Reviewer Recognition

JCCM appreciates the contributions of reviewers and acknowledges their efforts through:

• Formal recognition in the journal’s annual reviewer acknowledgment section.
• Opportunities to join the editorial board for outstanding contributions.
• Certificates of appreciation for completed reviews.

6. Acceptance and Declining Review Requests

Reviewers should accept review requests only if they have expertise in the manuscript’s subject matter and can provide a fair, unbiased evaluation.

• Accepting a Review: Reviewers should confirm their availability and complete the review within the specified deadline.
• Declining a Review: If a reviewer is unable to complete the review, they should decline the invitation promptly and, if possible, suggest alternative qualified reviewers.

7. Final Recommendation

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript meets all quality and ethical standards for publication.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires slight modifications but is fundamentally sound.
• Major Revisions: The manuscript has significant issues that need to be addressed before reconsideration.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or has major flaws that cannot be resolved.

By participating in the peer review process for JCCM, reviewers agree to uphold the highest standards of integrity, professionalism, and confidentiality. For any questions regarding the review process, reviewers may contact the editorial office.