The Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine (JCCM) recognizes the vital role of peer reviewers in maintaining the scientific integrity, quality, and credibility of published research. Reviewers contribute significantly to the editorial process by providing objective, constructive, and timely assessments of submitted manuscripts. Their expertise ensures that only high-quality, ethically sound, and clinically relevant research in cardiology and cardiovascular medicine is published.

Reviewer's Responsibilities

1. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

Reviewers must handle all submitted manuscripts with strict confidentiality. The content, data, and findings of a manuscript should not be shared, discussed, or disclosed to anyone other than the editorial team. Reviewers must:

• Ensure that the manuscript remains confidential and is not used for personal research or professional gain.
• Refrain from discussing the manuscript with unauthorized individuals, including colleagues and students.
• Report any suspected ethical concerns, including plagiarism, duplicate submission, or data fabrication, to the editorial office.

2. Objectivity and Impartiality

Reviewers must provide fair and unbiased assessments of manuscripts, ensuring that their evaluations are based on scientific merit rather than personal or professional biases. They should:

• Critically evaluate the methodology, data interpretation, and validity of research findings.
• Avoid making personal criticisms of the authors and focus on providing constructive feedback.
• Maintain professional integrity and adhere to the highest standards of peer review ethics.

3. Constructive and Detailed Feedback

Reviewers should offer clear, specific, and constructive feedback to help authors improve their work. An effective review should:

• Identify both strengths and weaknesses in the research design, methodology, and conclusions.
• Provide specific recommendations for improvement, including suggestions for additional data analysis, clearer presentation, or stronger justification of findings.
• Ensure that the manuscript is well-structured, logically organized, and scientifically sound.
• Recommend appropriate references if additional citations are needed.

4. Timeliness and Commitment

The peer review process depends on timely evaluations. Reviewers should:

• Respond to review invitations promptly and accept assignments only if they can complete them within the given timeframe.
• Inform the editor immediately if they need an extension due to unforeseen circumstances.
• Submit their reviews by the specified deadline to avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process.

5. Identifying Ethical Issues

Reviewers must be vigilant in detecting ethical concerns and research misconduct, such as:

• Instances of plagiarism, data fabrication, or falsification.
• Redundant or duplicate publication of the same study.
• Inadequate patient consent or failure to adhere to ethical research guidelines.
• Potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed by the authors.

Any ethical concerns should be reported confidentially to the editorial office.

6. Avoiding Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could compromise their ability to provide an unbiased review. They should:

• Decline to review manuscripts where they have personal, financial, or professional conflicts with the authors.
• Refrain from reviewing manuscripts in which they have prior knowledge of unpublished data from the study.
• Notify the editorial office immediately if a conflict of interest arises during the review process.

7. Providing a Final Recommendation

After completing their evaluation, reviewers must provide a recommendation regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication. The possible recommendations include:

• Accept: The manuscript meets all scientific, ethical, and quality standards and is ready for publication.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript is fundamentally sound but requires minor improvements before acceptance.
• Major Revisions: The manuscript has significant issues that need substantial revision before reconsideration.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s publication criteria or has major flaws that cannot be rectified.

8. Commitment to Scientific Integrity

Reviewers contribute to the advancement of cardiology and cardiovascular medicine by upholding the highest ethical and scientific standards. They must:

• Ensure that all manuscripts meet scientific validity and ethical research guidelines.
• Encourage research that advances medical knowledge, promotes innovation, and benefits patient care.
• Uphold the journal’s commitment to fairness, transparency, and excellence in scientific publishing.

The JCCM sincerely appreciates the contributions of its reviewers and recognizes their essential role in maintaining the journal’s quality and credibility. For any inquiries regarding the review process, reviewers may contact the editorial office.