Editorial and Peer Review Process

How We Evaluate Manuscripts

Every manuscript submitted to the International Journal of Cardiology Sciences goes through a structured evaluation process. We've designed this process to be thorough but not unnecessarily slow — we know authors are eager for decisions, and we respect that. At the same time, cardiology research can directly affect patient care, so we don't cut corners.

Here's what happens after you hit "submit."

Stage 1: Initial Screening

When your manuscript arrives, our editorial staff conducts an initial quality check. This isn't peer review yet — it's more like triage. We're looking for basic issues that need to be addressed before the paper can move forward:

Does the manuscript fall within our scope? Is it formatted according to our guidelines? Are all required sections present—ethics statements, conflict of interest declarations, funding disclosures, data availability statements? Are figures and tables included and properly labelled?

If something's missing or unclear, we'll send the manuscript back with a request for clarification. This isn't a rejection — it's just housekeeping. Once everything is in order, we move on.

Stage 2: Editorial Assessment

After clearing the initial checks, your manuscript is assigned to an Academic Editor—typically a member of our Editorial Board with expertise in your paper's subject area. Occasionally, we bring in a Guest Editor for topics that require specialized knowledge outside our regular board.

The handling editor reads your manuscript and makes a judgment: Does this work have the scientific rigor, originality, and relevance to warrant peer review? Not every submission passes this stage. Some papers are declined here because they fall outside our scope, duplicate existing work, or have fundamental methodological problems that peer review won't fix.

If the editor sees potential, they'll move the manuscript to external peer review.

Stage 3: Peer Review

We use double-blind peer review. This means reviewers don't know who wrote the paper, and authors don't know who reviewed it. We do this to minimize bias and ensure manuscripts are judged on their merits alone.

The handling editor selects reviewers based on their expertise, publication record, and track record of providing thoughtful, constructive feedback. We typically invite two reviewers per manuscript. Once they agree to review, they have about two weeks to submit their comments. If reviewers are running late, we follow up—and we'll keep you informed if delays occur.

During submission, you can tell us if there's anyone who shouldn't review your manuscript — a competitor, someone with a known conflict, or anyone else you have concerns about. We'll honor these requests as long as doing so doesn't compromise the quality of the review.

Stage 4: Editorial Decision

Once reviews are in, the handling editor weighs the feedback alongside their own assessment. The decision isn't simply a vote count — an editor might accept a paper despite a skeptical reviewer if they believe the criticisms can be addressed, or reject it despite positive reviews if they identify a serious flaw.

There are four possible outcomes:

• Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication, perhaps with minor copyediting. This is rare on first submission.
• Minor Revision: The paper is fundamentally sound but needs some polishing — clarifications, additional analysis, or responses to specific reviewer questions.
• Major Revision: Significant work is needed. The reviewers have identified substantial issues that must be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication. A revised manuscript will typically go back to the original reviewers.
• Reject: The manuscript isn't suitable for publication in our journal. This might be because of fundamental flaws, because it doesn't fit our scope, or because the contribution isn't significant enough.

What Reviewers Evaluate

Our reviewers assess manuscripts on several dimensions:

• Scientific validity: Is the methodology sound? Are the conclusions supported by the data? Are there obvious errors or gaps in the analysis?
• Originality: Does this work add something new to the field? Is it merely incremental, or does it offer genuine insights?
• Clinical relevance: For a cardiology journal, we're particularly interested in research that has implications for patient care, whether directly or as groundwork for future clinical applications.
• Presentation: Is the manuscript well-written and clearly organized? Are figures and tables effective? Can readers follow the argument?
• Ethical considerations: Has the research been conducted ethically? Are there any concerns about data integrity, authorship, or conflicts of interest?

Tracking Your Manuscript

Our submission system lets you check on your manuscript's progress. Here's what the various status indicators mean:

Appeals

If your manuscript is rejected and you believe the decision was wrong, you can appeal. But appeals aren't just for expressing disappointment — they're for specific situations:

You believe a reviewer or editor made a significant factual error that affected the decision. Or you have evidence that a reviewer or editor had an undisclosed conflict of interest that compromised their objectivity. In either case, you'd need to show that correcting the error or conflict would change the outcome.

Submit your appeal in writing to the Editor-in-Chief. At least one senior editor will review it. We may decline to consider appeals if the rejection involved integrity concerns, or if the issues are too complex to resolve through the appeals process.

Important: While your appeal is under consideration, your manuscript remains formally with International Journal of Cardiology Sciences. Don't submit it elsewhere until the appeal is resolved. Decisions on appeals are final.

What to Expect: Timelines

We aim to reach a first decision within 2–4 weeks of submission, though complex manuscripts or difficulty finding reviewers can extend this. If your paper is taking longer than expected, we'll keep you informed.

Once accepted, production typically takes 1–2 weeks before your article appears online.

Questions?

If you have questions about the review process or want to check on a manuscript that seems stuck, contact us at cardio.submit@gmail.com. We're happy to help.